Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 6

< 5 April	7 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete Field Model

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a work of original research and novel narrative, a new theory of the universe, not verifiable in any reputable source. Lumpy27 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is pure original research and novel narrative. The "Discrete Field Model" is a original theory of the universe that is totally unverifiable in any reputable scientific literature. It does not meet the Wikipedia rules for inclusion.Lumpy27 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't actually bother defining "discrete field model". Instead, it rambles on about topics the author considers related, citing references that in the cases I checked weren't really related to the text they were cited from. I'm actually wondering if this is a Sokal-style hoax, though for the time being I'll assume it was written with honest intentions. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This theory seems to be the work of one "Peter Jackson" who has submitted a number of papers on the subject to the vixra archive. This implies a few things 1)this Peter Jackson is not affiliated to any scientific institution 2) he has not been able to get any respectable scientist to endorse his work. Moreover none of the papers have been publisher in a scientific journal, nor have they gathered any scientific attention. As such the article fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. TimothyRias (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No comments here. --Dc987 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Retain - Firstly, I object to suggestions that I am a man. From some of the comments here - I couldn't bear to loose my intuition. Please refer to my post in the discussion page. It is pure opinion that the viXra web archive is not reputable. There are some iffy papers on almost all sites - and even in Nature Physics, but the DFM papers are not among them. Yes, it moves physics ahead - but nothing in the page is novel, or indeed just 'theory'. I wouldn't have gone to all the effort of writing the page if I didn't believe it was needed and important. Physics is nor static, and wiki would be worthless if IT was.

There is no harm in this paper, indeed many have never seen the important Einstein quotes it contains, which alone makes it important. The DFM exists and must be considered. It would be the very worst form of opinionated censorship to remove it. I won't repeat the points in my discussion entries so please read and consider them carefully. JudithDocjudith (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Supporting Comment. Forgive me guys but the term "Looks like.." just exposes lack of knowledge of the subject, and lack of qualification to make the comment. This is no hoax. I'm aware it runs close to the 'notability' line, but even if it crossed it there is provision for 'occasional exceptions' which, if it did, I'd also argue.

Let me be fully open. I do have added reason for this effort. You'd recognise my maiden name as I'm from a scientific family including a deceased high academic and national body head. I didn't follow and major in physics as such for my own science degrees but closely followed the work and career path. Coming across the DFM was a revelation, finally resolving a massive enigma, and an important one for scientific progress.

Now I well understand that most won't immediately understand the conceptual approach. I was very familiar with the subject matter and past work so it clicked immediately into place. Despite it's simplicity it simply won't do so for most. The fact is it's not a 'new' or 'novel' theory at all! It only uses known physical processes, from across science, and thinks about them more clearly - following Einsteins lead, guidance, and indeed, words. It does indeed also have a very firm and credible part in the history of physics, now with just the last tiny link added, or 'click' of the key to open the door.

The result is a solid proof of Relativity, but finally tidied up into a fully consistent model, to remove paradox, harmonise with QFT and explain a lot of astrophysical anomolies. This should finally remove dissident argument and allow physics to progress. I understand it was indeed offered to a peer review journal and refused (with the 99%+) and the author seems happy to have it web archived and reticent to push further. I think he understands it's massive significance but sees his own role as modest, and also sees how resistant parts of science will be to even studying it. But it's there, in the fluid mix, flowing closely alongside the mainstream, but not yet leading, as ruling paradigms take a long long time to evolve, despite Poppers view, and many are scared of evolution! We had some very positive expert responses - but few dare take a lead yet.

But this discussion shouldn't be about how right the model is. If you have your doubts do some wider homework and flex your brains more conceptually! It undoubtedly and stunningly is about right, if not in every tiny detail. But should it be here? On the very strictest judgement perhaps not, but that's exactly what the notability policy caveat about 'occasional exceptions' is for. I've glanced through the page again, and agree I let my enthusiasm run away a little in the writing. As you're aware, it's a busy time of year, but I'll undertake to do a major clean up/rewrite, re-arrange it and condense it to it's simplest form. And Christopher, the explanation is there, but I'll clarify it. As Einstein said (in a way none of you now could) we "should be able to explain physics to a barmaid"! I hope you'll support me in this. It is important. Docjudith (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever the merits of the theory, it has to be published in a reliable source to have an article. Vixra has to be assumed equivalent to self-publication, and is not sufficient to establish notability. I suggest waiting until it has been published in a reliable source, or at least until a few WP:IRS cite it. Paradoctor (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas Wine Bar and Bistro

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is unclear. It just appears to be a restaurant with no significant coverage to establish why it is notable. EuroPride (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if someone showed us what the coverage in all these papers was, because I can't find any of them except one local paper. However, I suspect all of this attention is in relation to its appearance in The Restaurant (UK TV series). If this is the case, it's notability by association, so I suggest a redirect to that page, and anyone who wishes to create a list of participating restaurants there is welcome to do so. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; coverage of this place in regard to the TV series seems to be limited to a passing mention in the article about UK season 1, so I don't see the value of a redirect. Propaniac (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savonian

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small list page and is not needed - created by a non-Wikipedia user. Whenaxis (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation per WP:DISAMBIG (and for that matter, WP:NOTADICTIONARY). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary as there are unlikely to be additional nouns, and I could find no notable people named Savonian. The adjectival form and two noun usages means that things can be disambiguated at the hatnote level. I disagree that WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies in this instance. --Bejnar (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not a needed dab. fetchcomms☛ 03:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-As the AFC creator I thought it seemed like it could be of use at the time, but if the community sees otherwise I'm Neutral..--SKATER ^Speak. 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Savonia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BC Report

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references and defunct magazine plus no Google hits except for Wikipedia. Whenaxis (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a number of hits using Google. Defunct is never a reason to delete. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Alberta Report. The sources added fall well below the standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources" that our policy requires. I am surprised, however, that a published news magazine, especially if the details of its columnists in the article are correct, doesn't have more coverage. I can't find any more coverage but the search terms are quite difficult to configure. Unless significant coverage can be found, this should be merged to the article of the BC Report's parent and subsequent iteration, the Alberta Report, as there would be insufficient sources for a stand-alone article. A merge will at least preserve the limited sourceable content in the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Eastmain. Just because it is defunct doesn't mean it is no longer notable. Silverseren^C 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well if it weren't for you (Silver seren) and Eastmain, the article was a total mess before with no references, no external links and there were minimal Google hits. But now you have changed it after I nominated it. Whenaxis (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we're here for. ^_^ Silver seren^C 22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added citations to articles from the Financial Post and Canadian Press. With the Post article in particular, I think there's enough there to meet the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to keep. Paul Erik's sources do appear to be significant coverage. Certainly not the others. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage appears adequate for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backside Flag

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real-world support for this phrase, or the propositions made regarding the adoption of a different flag. bd2412 T 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete In the absence of sources, very close to nonsense. Essentially all of the results in google are totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I can find, including citations to US Military publications, say the flag is simply reversed to make it appear to be blowing in the breeze behind a pole while being carried forward - not to make it legally not a flag and therefore immune from some proposed amendment that will overthrow the president. This article reads like the workings of a conspiracy theorist, and without reliable citations, it can't stand. I'd speedy this even if appropriate. CSZero (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the absence of a FOIA release from relevant DoD and JAG lawyers, Heraldry, and even Natick Laboratories who were forced to implement this SNAFU, there is no secondary source for unpublished meetings from early in the Reagan Administration, to cope with "morning in America" ads. Keep the article, but perhaps factual motive should be down played with appropriate terminology. Sadly this policy is a response to silliness. The flag from either side is still beautiful and should be respected as a symbol and communications equipment of a nation ruled by the US Constitution. Deleting the terminology that was designed to protect the Military from political huberus, and save Soldiers lives, is problematic. Also BD2412 orphaned the article link from the Military preparations portion of the Anti-Flag_Burning_Amendment, so no one is likely to find it. Apparently the eyewitness needs to come forward and publish, but that is not likely. It first happened in the meeting location where Seal Team Six was founded. Also the Backside Flag predates concerns of the over application of Legislative authority to limit the first amendment, such as on aircraft tails. Because regulation is unpopular with Conservatives, yet Patriotism trumps that, this article will likely die. Any suggestions? Also how do we correctly apply predictions, such as regulation costs money? comment added by Npendleton (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even double-secret conspiracy theories turn up more references than this, which turns up zero. I call hoax. bd2412 T 22:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- So delete the page, its fine by me, no one needs to know your tone. Deletion saves everyone much bother. I am not gonna fight to make the military publish on this question.Npendleton (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You do not need to "make the military publish on this question"; you only need to get a reliable source (a newspaper, news program, author of a book on the subject) to report on it. bd2412 T 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete this article is entirely made up. The American flag shown with the canton to the front is perfectly sound in terms of heraldry and is still the American flag. The United States flag is to be displayed with the canton to its own right OR to the FRONT. The flag on US Army uniforms is the United States flag, not this fantasy "backside flag." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montizzle (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable fringe theory.Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR nonsense based on misunderstandings of just about everything the article attempts to cover. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. Merge can be performed if desired. Shimeru (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forrester Creations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted in AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrester Creations. This new version has no new information to assert notability and no sources. Rocksey (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge ' Much less plot summary than in the previous article; but since the topic is so closely related to the main article, it might be better merged. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What in the article is worth keeping or merging? In what way does this article meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? Rocksey (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of just referring to a debated proposed guideline, as per Schmidt, I'll point to WP:N and WP:PLOT since the article has no sources to establish real world significance and no information beyond the details of the plot. So, I still have to ask, what is proven notable enough to keep or merge? Rocksey (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my own web search, I found "Forrester Creations" written of in context to The Bold and the Beautiful in Africans and the Politics of Popular Culture and other books as well. It would seem that whatever can be properly sourced can be properly merged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - All those "sources" do is give a recap of the plot. They don't give information on how the fictional company is notable outside of the storyline of the TV show. Besides, Africans and the Politics of Popular Culture not only focus's on the plot, it is recaping the plot incorrectly. I wanted to use this source on a different article, but then changed my mind after seeing all the errors. Rocksey (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't view the original article, but if the version at Wikibin accurately reproduces its content, this clearly qualifies for a G4 speedy. In any event, no new sources—indeed, no sources whatever—are supplied (or are evident in a Web search) that would invalidate the result of the previous AfD or suggest a different outcome this time. Deor (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge If DGG belives the article would be better merged, I would be inclined to not refer to a debated proposed guideline and prefer to rely on his judgement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as Deor points out, this is probably a candidate for G4 speedy deletion. Can some friendly neutral admin confirm whether this is so? In any case, the reasons given for deletion from the last AfD (ie. it's unsourced plot summary) have not been addressed. Since the article contains no sourced material it is clearly inappropriate to merge any of its content anywhere. Reyk _YO! 06:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:NOEFFORT is always a worry. The previous AFD claimed that the previous version did not have sources... not that they do not exist. However now that it is here and being revisited, it would seem that the subject is found through a book search and a news search, so it might be considered that actually sourcing this article is a surmountable issue, and it would stand to reason that whatever is kept or merged should be able to be sourced for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no deadline, and given the non-controversial nature of the article there is no harm in waiting until one day someone bored enough sources it. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Propaniac (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Happenstance - enough sourcing seems to be available, making merging also an option. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not notable enough to have an article of its own, but any content relevant to the show in general should be added to that page. &dorno rocks. (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of causes of hypoglycemia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this discussion and this discussion at WP:MED, consensus has arisen that lists of causes of symptoms such as this are largely unmanageable and of little use to the project. PDCook (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any value in this list. It isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia, even if it was referenced. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As PDCook notes, this list is not a good way to present the information in general. And in particular, this list is not based on verifiable sourced information so deletion is needed. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the discussions at WikiProject Medicine. Efforts to reference this list would be better used in improving Hypoglycemia#Causes. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unreferenced, if it was properly referenced I might have voted differently.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Axl. JFW | T@lk 00:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only thing this list contributes is to indicate that there are a huge number of causes of hypoglycaemia, something already covered in the extensive article Hypoglycemia, and therefore adds nothing to existing knowledge. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per above. Renaissancee (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green exercise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page appears to be based on a neologism linked to a single reference (Jules Pretty / University of Essex). It there is little content within the article, and the article has been present for some time now. It appears to based on a term rather than a unique concept. The Wikiversity entry is also based around the same reference. A pubmed search found one additional article using the term, and a google search finds a couple of uses, but often related to the original reference. I'm not sure this article can be expanded without OR, and may be better merged somewhere else? I'm transferring this note from the article talk page in case the page creator doesnt have time to get to this discussion (Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) :[reply]

in my view there is now sufficient info at v:Green exercise to demonstrate that the topic is valid although obviously the current WP article is a stub in need of development. -- Jtneill - Talk 02:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it is notable the article is now just a dictionary definition.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's easy to throw in the adjective "green" on just about anything, most of those terms are not notable. I'm not sure how one is benefiting the environment by doing one's exercise outside, nor why anyone thinks that's a novel idea of some sort. One might as well call going on a picnic "green dining". Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Green dining would probably need to be quite vigorous to be considered green exercise, although gardening is generally considered to be a type of green exercise. This comment would be good for discussion at Talk:Green exercise. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added some more refs and a little more initial intro material. I've also invited researchers from the University of Essex who are leaders in the area to contribute to the article. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still feel it is a neologism - I can only find one reference (Neill) that is independent of the Essex group. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many references do you think are necessary to demonstrate the validity of such a concept? -- Jtneill - Talk 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have similar concerns e.g., about articles such as Green Gym and Green prescription? -- Jtneill - Talk 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the number of references, it's whether the term is a neologism or a developed tangible concept. Green Gym and Green Prescription both refer to tangible programs rather than general ideas, so I'm happy to keep those. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has several references such as Pretty 2003, not just one. The draft of Mackay and Neill shows a heap of references. The concept refers to Attention restoration theory which is well established by famous names in psychology. Of course this article can be considered a stub and needs work. -- Rixs (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references I've found referring to 'Green exercise' have either been by Pretty (et al) or Neill (including within Neill's reference list). I'm still not convinced it better under WP:Avoid neologisms as a wiktionary page rather than Wikipedia page. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Rixs. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' the EB article is sufficient evidence. We are a superset of the topics in other encyclopedias. That a responsible tertiary publication covers it in a major way is proof of notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~^{(double vote}} I'm still not convinced. The EB article is a complete reproduction of a pre-existing publication (from the Biologist), and I am unable to find a reference that is independent of the authors Pretty or Neill (including the wikipedia article), so am not convinced the term is a notable neologism. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote for your own nomination like this as it may be considered deceptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is not a neologism and even if it were this would not be a reason to delete. The topic is covered by numerous sources such as New Scientist. Any imperfections in the current draft may be addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy. I have added a citation to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why was there no discussion about concerns with this article on its discussion page before the nomination for deletion? -- Jtneill - Talk 16:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Clovis Sangrail tx for clarification. Could you point me to WP policy about neologism? FYI, I started a stub section on Green exercise#Examples to document examples of green exercise programs. -- Jtneill - Talk 16:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO is a style guideline. Its point is that we shouldn't use words which will not be understood. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~^{(double vote}} as I said before, in case my vote needs to be counted agian. -- Rixs (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename^{(see below)}. Pretty 2003 is a primary source: "We believe, therefore, there is a synergistic benefit in adopting physical activities whilst at the same time being directly exposed to nature. We call this `green exercise’." The so-called EB article was written by the same authors in the new section of the site that allows Wikipedia-like editing (see [1]). Without these references, the subject seems to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are abundant references which provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - one simply has to browse the search links above to immediately find sources such as Key Concepts in Public Health. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is green exercise a type of exercise that is environmentally friendly? Or is the term synonymous with outdoor exercise? I don't know, because the term is a neologism. Most of the Google Books results contain trivial and somewhat conflicting mentions. Search for potentially defining "green exercise is" or "green exercise"+definition and you'll only get a couple of irrelevant or trivial hits. A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. The book you just mentioned doesn't seem to do that. It only appears to use the term twice or thrice, in the chapter about Public Health and Natural Environment. — Rankiri (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is just one of many sources. Some of these sources are of book length and have the phrase in their title. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please recall WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I see much more Google Book results for "good exercise", "rigorous exercise" or "why exercise?", but that doesn't make them acceptable article ~~titles~~ subjects. — Rankiri (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact title of the article is unimportant here because

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we are concerned with topics not words
Title changes are performed by the move function which is available to any editor and does not require deletion.

So, please address the topic, not the wording of the title. If you do not understand this title, then please refer to the lead of the article which defines it as "physical exercise undertaken in relatively natural environments". Colonel Warden (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected my previous comment. — Rankiri (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the lead sentence is not supported by valid sources. You think it refers to exercising in nature; I think that it refers to environmentally conscious exercising. That's exactly why we have WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a difference without a distinction. The word green is well chosen in this context to indicate both the presence of nature and the ecological aspects. For example, the source cited above gives gardening as an example and makes the point that this combines physical exercise with natural surroundings and gives mental benefits not just because of these but also because of the environmental benefit of being productive in improving the garden. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The Oxford dictionary defines the adjective as

of the colour between blue and yellow in the spectrum; coloured like grass.
covered with grass or other vegetation.
(of a plant or fruit) young or unripe. ?(of food, wood, pottery, or leather) in its untreated or original state; not cured, seasoned, fired, etc.
inexperienced or naive.
pale and sickly-looking.
(usu. Green) concerned with or supporting protection of the environment as a political principle.
(of a ski run) of the lowest level of difficulty.

You can show me which of the above definitions indicates both the presence of nature and the ecological aspects, or we can stop arguing semantics and return to the fact that that the article's references don't contain enough direct nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Green energy redirects to Sustainable energy. Perhaps we can get rid of the ambiguity by moving the page to Outdoor exercise? — Rankiri (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor exercise redirects to Physical exercise which is too general. Even outdoor exercise does not convey the essence of the topic which is exercise in natural surroundings - a park or wood rather than a city street or car park, say. Related topics which are closer in meaning include biophilia, nature deficit disorder and ecopsychology. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Panzica

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not seem to satisfy WP:CREATIVE SPat ^talk 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is a self-published author with no coverage in reliable sources. I did find her book listed at the Traverse City Record-Eagle. However, this isn't even a book review. It's one of several books listed with no critical commentary and only a short ploy synopsis. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self published author. Possible A7 speedy candidate, as a self published book is not a plausible claim to notability and there is nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG; also, fails WP:PROF as an events planner at a college. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep main article and Merge individual books into it. 2 Keeps, 3 Deletes, 2 Keep main+Merge books (the last two votes, even though they've got Keep bolded) - the obvious thing to do appears to go with a merge to main series. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Covenant Series

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable series of novels, only coverage online seems to be amazon & similar catalogs. Most have been tagged questionable notability for more than a year. Misarxist (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Includes the above novels from the series. Misarxist (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or merge with authors' article. There is little independent coverage for the books.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In agreement with nomination. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search at the top of the AFD shows 8 results for the series[2]. Fort Wayne News Sentinel has an article titled LOOKING FOR AN ENTERTAINING BOOK? TRY THESE, and mentions the series. You can't read the entire article without paying though. Google book search link shows books have been published talking about these novels. Christian fiction: a guide to the genre By John Mort, at the bottom of page 78 and the top of page 79. A book titled A Light in Zion mentions "Bodies award- winning writing of The Zion Chronicles and The Zion Covenant series is supported by Brock's careful research and development". That's all that the preview allows to be read though. So, these writers won awards for this series of novels. Google book results has 58 results. Some of their books are on the bestsellers list. I'll keep looking to see exactly what awards they have won. Dream Focus 03:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's one review [3] of one of the books from g-news (the pay article mentioned is only 750 words long), & of g-books it seems to be just passing mentions & plot summaries in a few readers guides except for this page or two [4]. These could be added to the article on the authors (who are notable, have been kept at AFD before) but it seems that these books are still delete. (Note below the sales figures are from their web-site & there's only one mention in a readers comment on NYT.) Misarxist (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The award that Barnes and Noble says one of the books won, is a mistake, that award given out to eight other novels they've published in series other than these novels. This couple has sold over ten million copies of their novels. The New York Times website is screwing up, I unable to find the authors on it at all [5], or any of their books. Their bestsellers list is suppose to list things like this. Anyway, these books do get plenty of coverage in places that review religious books at least, and they probably sold well. So I say keep all. Dream Focus 05:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' The books are each of them in over one thousand libraries. [6] Most of them have ibeen translated into several languages. There are probably reviews, for books get purchased by libraries on the basis of reviews. The articles need rewriting to show at least the facts of publication. Anyone can do it from WorldCat, and give that as a reference. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are references to these novels in some other published books; Google Scholar finds half a dozen. That's not a lot, and there seems to be almost zero coverage in newspapers, but still, I think the series makes it as notable. It would certainly help if someone could add a reference or two to the article. Meanwhile, although I am voting to keep the article about the series, I would suggest deleting the articles about the individual books, and redirecting to this article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I'd keep the series article and merge the individual books into it.David V Houston (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kochtopus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Word made up by some commenters and bloggers. Maybe technically not a wp:Neologism because the first instance of it can be found in 1980, still, I doubt it appears in any dictionary or is in wide use. Moreover, the sources for this word are all blogs, or otherwise not wp:rs and the article strikes me as a delivery system for opinions rather than verifiable fact. Additionally, the term is clearly made to disparage the subject Charles G. Koch, which strikes me as a wp:BLP violation. Bonewah (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be a weird neologism. It doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. --Pstanton (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(cringes at the misuse of "encyclopedic") Keep. Every word is made up by somebody. Also, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia whose titles you wouldn't show up in a dictionary, e.g. Metallica, and there are a lot of words that appear in dictionaries that aren't included in Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mother Jones and The Libertarian Forum are not such bad sources, and there are a few others I just found on Google Scholar that I may add in a moment. Also, an octopus is not necessarily associated with anything negative (in contrast to, say, a weasel or a snake). Lastly, Koch is a public figure and in any event, truth is a defense to libel. Tisane (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Metallica is a proper name willingly adopted by its members, and confirmed by its appearance in reliable sources. 'Kochtopus', in contrast, is a pejorative made up by either a single commentator or, at most, small handful of detractors and appearing in a few blogs and editorials. The difference is huge. Your claim that an octopus is not necessarily negative is ridiculous, are we to suppose that name was chose due to the group's mutual love of Cephalopods? Come now, lets just quote one of your sources "but the stage was set for the birth of what Libertarians call, not altogether fondly, the "Kochtopus"" and "The tentacles of the Kochtopus..." and "The "Kochtopus" is a derogatory name coined by the late Samuel Edward Konkin". Your comment about truth being a defense against libel doesnt make sense, we are not a court of law, Wikipedia is governed by its own set of rules and I dont think this is a libel issue anyway. Bonewah (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a derogatory nickname for a living person - basically an attack page. The term might rate a mention in the article about Koch, along with a few citations such as those listed here, but no way should it have its own article. For starters, the definition given - "The Kochtopus is a group of minarchist organizations founded by Charles G. Koch" - has no basis in fact, since I think we can rest assured that Koch doesn't refer to them that way. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Weigel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BIO. Just because the person has written a lot via newspaper blogs does not make the individual notable. Note that article had already been speedily deleted but was restored. As per the policy on "journalists", his individual work is not 1)regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors 2) had a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews or 3)either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. -Ave Caesar (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on the fact that he is considered an expert in his chosen field as the following quotes show: “elite media journalist. ... David Weigel,” per the Washington Post on Oct 31, 2008 and by the Los Angeles Times quoting “David Weigel pointed out in multiple critiques of ... in the world of professional journalism” on June 11, 2008. In addition, there are quotes from NPR – Time – Dallas Morning News – the Irish Times – Washington Times plus several other reliable – certifiable – third party – independent sources that also attest to this fact, as shown here [7]. Based on this information, Mr. Weigle meets our criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think as a well-known national journalist, he is notable. The above comment by Shoessss supports this thought.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a blogger, not a journalist. That's not to say bloggers can't be notable, but there is no proof of influence. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Supporting the fact that Mr. Weigel meets the criterion of being a notable journalist is that he has appeared on multiple NPR shows (Weekend Edition, Fresh Air with Terry Gross - twice) and numerous times on the MSNBC evening cable news/political shows. In addition, he is frequently referenced when not on those shows by Wikipedia notables, including: Chris Hayes (Washington, D.C. Editor of The Nation), Ana Marie Cox (Washington Correspondent for GQ Magazine), and Rachel Maddow herself of the Rachel Maddow Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverstone (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the first and only edit made by the above user...Further, the user offers no proof of wide citation.--Ave Caesar (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments of Shoessss and Wolverstone.--JayJasper (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above and the fact that Weigel was just snatched up by the Washington Post because of the unparalleled work he's currently doing covering the conservative movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.142.166 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs better sourcing, but I don't see why he's not notable. Keep, although that is not an endorsement of his ideas. 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep. I was looking for information on this journalist and I found it here. That is what an encyclopedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.71.241 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable blogger per Wikipedia criteria.--98.218.126.193 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AUTH: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Evidence of this has been supplied by Shoes. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). TJRC (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Buckeye Institute

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

don't need it anymore — Bdb484 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been stated. The Google news timeline shows plentiful hits, based on this and other searches, it appears to be notable. It's a well-crafted article. I note that the fact that the nominator is the article's creator and principle contributor, and the profferred reason for deletion suggests that the article was written for his own purposes. But notwithstanding that, it meets Wikipedia notability standards, and articles are not owned, WP:OWN. Keep. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was requesting deletion of subpages in my userspace and accidentally tagged the version I had pushed live. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Adam Briggs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sole contributor removed CSD tags multiple times. After article was CSD'd, contributor wished deletion to be reviewed by the community instead. Non-notable person involved in non-notable business ventures. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough to meet WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears not to meet notability standards, as NawlinWiki says. --Pstanton (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed the CSD tags as I thought I was supposed to. I'm new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, SeniorsGrandCentral, a business venture is quite notable to many people over the age of 55 across the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Additionally, the fellow has made significant contributions to the computer graphics professional community, and has been widely known for such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's no need to vote more than once. I went ahead and bolded your first keep though, so it's more evident, and formatted your comments. I hope you don't mind. ^_^ Silver seren^C 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why you guys are saying that it doesn't meet notability standards, per WP:BIO. There is a significant amount of coverage in the sources that establish notability. Silver seren^C 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fellow seems notable enough from what I'm reading and the editor who created the page did note when he created it that the article was not ready for review yet. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additional comments, and relative data are available in the discussion segment of the page -- also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Merz_Nordstrom is/was a writer for eGenerations as her "LifeLong" column on eGenerations still is live http://egenerations.com/lifelong-articles - hope that helps

Also, there is additional data available on Vator.tv here >> http://vator.tv/company/online-community-because-experience-never-gets-old-egenerations —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

thanks btw to those assisting me as I learn wikipedia. i'm not intentionally trying to do the incorrect things (vote twice, etc) - so thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Sorry, not notable - which means, not recognized or written about by independent reliable sources (see WP:N and WP:RS). Looking at the references in the article: one, the only detailed one, is from a less-than-one-year-old quarterly supplement to a small regional newspaper; one is actually an op-ed or letter to the editor written BY the subject; and one is a blog article which describes the subject's efforts to land a job as a CIO. (If he is such a notable tycoon, why is he trolling for a job as a CIO? And is he hoping to point to this Wikipedia article to support his job search?) As for Vator it's a directory-type listing, presumably self-supplied. Not a single WP:Reliable source among them. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just some notes - Another point of view could be that he's a pioneering CIO (the highest seat available in IT), and that video resumes are the future. One could consider leading-edge notable.

See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability. 'DesignerHuman' talks about the notability of the ?SeniorsCentral? organization - but that's not what this article is about. David V Houston (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

So why is that this sat with a majority of KEEPs in limbo, and as soon as DELETEs hit 1 in the majority, it gets deleted. Things seem really bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS fiefdoms - apparently the read on Wiki editors is correct - this is BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Bozeman Magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bombastic article about a non-notable free quarterly tourism magazine alleged to be "professional and reliable" and "valuable to locals, as well as tourists, as Montana becomes a true skiing destination." The "national attention" claimed for the magazine consists of half a sentence at the end of a Washington Post article about an unrelated topic, and from the citation provided, "state-wide recognition by local and national organizations" apparently amounts to this brief blog post. Fails WP:CORP; WP:NBOOK does not strictly apply but would not help either. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The article has now been rewritten in a significantly more encyclopedic tone. According to this comment on my talkpage, the original version was by the magazine's intern, and after it was put up for deletion someone else stepped in. He promises better sources, but I still don't see them. The best on offer now is this blog rumination, which reads halfway like a joke with lines like, "We send ritualistic text messages once every season: 'Dude, I grabbed you the new Outside Bozeman!'". I continue to support deletion of the article. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources currently in the article discuss the magazine in a significant fashion. I can not find any sources that do discuss the magazine. Notability is not established. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources mentioned in the article are mostly not reliable, and those that are do not discuss the magazine (and only give it a passing mention, while some don't mention it at all). A cursory web search reveals no significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which does not fulfill WP:N. Any information added would fail WP:V. Recommend delete. Aditya Ex Machina 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only non-notable, but from what Glenfarclas says, the article was written by the staff of the magazine - clearly a WP:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Charlotte Hornets (WFL)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Result: Keep (non-admin closure) as information not being sourced can be rectified. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads as WP:OR or a snip from a sports report. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable professional sports team. This is a content issue, to be addressed by editing, not by deletion. There are sixty-some versions of this article, going back almost 6 years. One of these should work. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the team competed on a fully professional level of sport, and since there is a LOT of coverage in third party sources, this article does not warrant deletion. There are content issues though. Recommend keep and violent stubbing. Aditya Ex Machina 20:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World Football League team page? Yes, of course! Widely sourced, verifiable, reliable sources--everything a growing article needs to be kept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two links for people who want to know more about the WFL Hornets. Yes, there are other verifiable and reliable sources, but we need to make sure that those are included in the article. This was an easy fix. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close Seems like a good deal of information is there and asserts notability. All we need to do is source it and it will be fine. I am also closing this as keep as there is nothing more to discuss. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NTI Corp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail notability per WP:COMPANY. Doesn't establish notability but not a blatant advertising. RA (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Aditya Ex Machina 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't establish notability or importance. --Pstanton (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam, not notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add:
- NewTech Infosystems Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Created by the same spammers, as was NTIcorp.com, which was already speedied. Delete all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British team supporters list

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The results of a single, unidentified survey? WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete : it is unsourced, even if the source is given, it will be at best an estimate and therefore WP:OR, also WP:V issues. Codf1977 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. What survey? The article doesn't even say what the survey is! This might even qualify as a speedy. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This violates WP:NOT, WP:OR, and is poorly written. The name does not accurately describe the content (My first thought was that it was a list of every person on earth who supported a British team. What team, sport, and level of competition eluded me), and it has no lead section. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Snow" is not a rationale, nor is it appropriate in this case, and three of your concerns are not AfD concerns. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that WP:SNOW is not appropriate in this case - I can't see how this article can in any way be made compliant with WP policies and as such I see delete as the inevitable outcome. Codf1977 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A snapshot of an unsourced opinion survey at an unidentified time - unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similarly, Scottish team supporters list -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Neutrogena. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrogena Wave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a product with no published sources, it was once tagged for speedy deletion per G11, but I contested it because it doesn't look like the advertising was blatant. In my opinion, I think this article should be deleted, as this does not meet notability guideline for products, but if this article does fit one of the criteria for speedy deletion, then I apologise for removing the speedy deletion template. Minima c (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Neutrogena - non-notable facial cleanser. TJRC (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neutrogena. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neutrogena seems most appropriate here. Aditya Ex Machina 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safetec of america

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company (WP:ORG). Article does not establish notability (and reads solely like an advertisement). RA (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi Marathon 2009

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created in September 2009, and almost immediately PRODded as a hoax. I was able to find some references to it on he web. They weren't the greatest references, but were enough to establish that the article was not a hoax. I added one of the references and removed the PROD. It has had only trivial edits since then, and no edits at all after after September 2009.

However, since then, I've read the article more carefully, and while I still believe it's not a hoax (although it is erroneous, see below), I believe the race is not notable, and the article should be deleted.

The article states that the "marathon" covered "950 meters from the 'Revolution Square' to the 'Garden of Pushkin'". A marathon is 26.2 miles, i.e. 42.195 kilometers. If this 950-meter number is correct, we're talking about a footrace that's a little over a half-mile long, not a marathon. Dozens of little races like this (or longer than this; 10K is the norm) are put on in even small communities across the world. Unless this was a very special 950-meter race (and it does not appear to be), this is not a notable event.

The article claims that it holds the "Guinness world record as the fastest marathon ever run," which, if true, would make it notable. However, this claim makes no sense. First, it was not a marathon. Second, the world record time for the marathon is about 2 hours, double the one-hour time mentioned here. And one hour for a 950-meter race is absurdly slow. The actual record for the 1000-meter distance is a bit over two minutes. This claim of a world-record is too dubious to be relied on to establish notability. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage by reliable third party sources. If any record was set on that marathon run, there would be significant coverage of it. Determining whether the record was plausible or not is not needed. WP:V cannot be satisfied here. WP:N can't either. Recommend delete. Aditya Ex Machina 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally prodded this one as a possible hoax. It is still non notable and should be removed. --Stormbay (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the same user who was warned about disruption for making up the article "List of islands of Uchania" [8]. I guess that the lesson learned was that if it sounds real, and if you have a link to a source that nobody can read, it might work. Sometimes it does-- we have a number of people who think you're xenophobic if you question something that's sourced to a language you can't read. This one was kind of clever--in the Georgian script, you can see "11:00" and "12:00", and it was adapted to the article as the start and finish times for the "fastest marathon ever run". My view is that if it takes an hour to run 950 meters, they must have been held fast. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was another site (now dead) in English that mentioned the race. See the edit summaries. It's dead now. TJRC (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SysadminsInFilm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ludicrous and completely indiscriminate list. The fact that we could have a list doesn't mean we should. Ironholds (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW Dlabtot (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh? Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be a category, perhaps, but certainly not an article. Trivial list, per logic at WP:LISTCRUFT, recommend delete. Aditya Ex Machina 20:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh damn. I'm an inclusionist and a sysadmin who has appeared in a film and even I say delete. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in a film too. Must add myself to WikiAdminsInFilm, oh dear, it doesn't exist. Delete. Nancy ^talk 12:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does WikiEditorsInFilm. Snow Delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You three up there are a bunch of show offs. =( Aditya Ex Machina 10:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit less snarkiness would have been nice. treyka 13:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyka (talk • contribs)

I'm so sorry that you found my comment snarky. That was certainly not the intention. Nancy ^talk 14:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. No snarkiness intended. Just underscoring that being part of film's production company does not make a system admin any more or less notable that any other editor who may also be involvd in film in some way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. MichaelQSchmidt, I do take your point. treyka 11:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - and possibly snowball. The oddest, strangest and most whimsical list I've ever seen on Wikipedia. (and most unformatted, and worst name.) Kayau Voting IS evil 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit over the top. Aditya Ex Machina 18:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Expensive

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable pricing game from The Price Is Right. Absolutely no sources found anywhere, nor are any forthcoming. Per the discussions linked to the right and countless others like them, there is a very rapidly growing consensus that absolutely none of the pricing games are likely to prove themselves worthy of an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable, unsourced, already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games Sottolacqua (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability to suggest this needs a separate article.--Beloved Freak 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Walton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former political candidate. Wereon (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, and nothing that suggests he meets WP:POLITICIAN.--Beloved Freak 18:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has never met WP:POLITICIAN and is otherwise unnotable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with deletion. Shimgray | talk | 14:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ray^Talk 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Nelson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See below Accounting4Taste:talk 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Suicidal Tendencies. A disputed prod; this individual doesn't appear to me to meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC (which is the policy that suggests the redirect) through having been involved briefly with a single notable group; there are some unproven and possibly unprovable assertions of having "played" with Red Hot Chilli Peppers but "never really made it to record on any actual album with them". Accounting4Taste:talk 17:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Suicidal Tendencies. As far as I can determine, Jon Nelson was involved with Suicidal Tendencies from 1983-84, but never recorded with them. He is not mentioned in the Suicidal Tendencies article. I don't believe the article meets the criteria of WP:Notability#Music. Xtzou (Talk) 17:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete - Only possible claims to notability is unverifiable (at least at this time). Even if the claims were verifiable, having essentially only practiced with notable people\bands doesn't make the subject notable per WP:MUSIC. I can also find no news sources covering the subject which is admittedly hard given his name (rather common). An official redirect verdict from this discussion will keep the content in case the subject becomes notable while making a point to stop the author from removing db tags and recreating the article after A4T's redirect. OlYeller^Talktome 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote - I didn't realize how little his involvement with Suicidal Tendencies was. I feel that redirecting to that band would be the same as redirecting to all the other bands the author claims the subject has played with. If the content is ever needed, it can be retrieved by an admin. OlYeller^Talktome 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello Gordo here, Well the entire wiki page was made from info I got from an interview Jon Nelson did for a Suicidal Tendencies fansite, and also from info that of Jon Nelson himself has shared with me threw his Facebook page. He agrees to the wikipedia page I made, and plans to share some more info about his music life and his time with Suicidal Tendencies, and the other bands he played with. Thanks for your time and for really debating about this.(Gordomebix (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

-Gordomebix    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordomebix (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up things up about why I made this article. Well for starters, to give Suicidal Tendencies fans (old and new)some clarification on to who is Jon Nelson. To show how he contributed to the band, musically and to some extent on the attention he brought the band. I myself never knew who he was, and have seen live footage from the band in 1984 from you tube thinking the guitarist in that video was Grant Estes and also thought Rocky George replaced Grant Estes immediately after he left the band in 1983. I also took a look at the Join the Army entry and had to update the info on it because of info lacking Jon's involvement. I am aware that he never really played on any album with them, but there's a lot circulating around the net about his existence with the band. I even cited a comment Glen E. Friedman made about Jon Nelson's time with the band. He did make a record with the band The Brood which further add's source to keep this article. (Gordomebix (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blurt-site

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is a neologism which exists only within wikipedia, was coined on the date of afd nomination and is entirely original research Clovis Sangrail (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have said - was listed and contested under WP:PROD, and not deemed to fit under a CSD category. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non-notable neologism, failing WP:N, made up April 6, 2010. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of every neologism anyone makes up. (Speedy deletion should be possible for neologisms, but apparently is not, as long as there is somw content which is not patent nonsense, since someone feels per "CSD non-criterion 4" that "Neologisms. New specialized terms should have a wider hearing." OK, it has had that mandatory hearing, and wasted the time of the nominator and other editors, now delete it. Edison (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant and obvious word made up one day. ~ mazca ^talk 16:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard case of WP:MADEUP. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Wow, I've never seen such a carefully prepared neologism. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional toxins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I rather feel we are on the far edge of listcruft here. These fictional toxins appear to have nothing encyclopedic in common with each other, coming as they do from different films, stories, television programmes et cetera, and so I conclude that this is a list of indiscriminate information. A1octopus (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a very well organized table, doesn't qualify as "indiscriminate", and I can't envision that the information could be merged into a different article. There should be more sourcing, and some context should be added, but the mysterious substance wreaking havoc is what mystery fans would call a MacGuffin, and it's a common plot element. Unlike a real poison (such as thallium, which was in the Agatha Christie novel The Pale Horse, a fictional poison doesn't inspire imitations. Wikipedia's lists of fictional weapons, aircraft, presidents, nations, diseases, etc. are popular and are usually a useful navigation tool for other articles. This doesn't really work as a category, the information isn't available elsewhere, and I see no reason to delete it. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I would feel more strongly that the article should be kept if there were external sourcing, but poisons, mutagens and toxins which play an important role in notable works of fiction seems not to be indiscriminate. Although the introductory remarks say that the substances are fictional, some of the descriptions are too "in-universe" and give the impression that the things actually exist. The source books, films, or animations should have articles or be notable enough that they are deserving of articles, to avoid stuffing the list with things in every amateur work, fanfiction, or random scifi story buried in Astounding Sci Fi 1928. There are doubtless literally tens of thousands of potential list members if every one mentioned in every work of published or broadcast or theatrical fiction were included. How many are given at least a passing mention in the Harry Potter series? Or would it be the sense that every such instance in a published work is eligible? Edison (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Convert into category ~~The list just needs to be sourced better.~~ I had an afterthought. If the science fiction poison indeed is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then it could be part of a category which would capture the list automatically. kgrr ^talk 17:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. Though not particularly badly written, sources are lacking to establish notability of the concept and the inclusion criterion is not clear, e.g. "basilisk venom" is not exclusive to J.K. Rowling, and, in terms of sources of toxins, it just appear to be some random collection of popular fiction universes or stories. Are the toxins really notable even within the fictional sources? Again, compare the basilisk venom in Harry Potter which at least plays an important role in at least two of the books, to toxins from expansive fictional universes (e.g. Batman, Star Wars) which might have at most a mention or relatively trivial role in one of many minor stories within the universe.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list of non-notable information. Dlabtot (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not indiscriminate, a great place to keep minor fictional elements that don't merit their own article. Has no problems that can't be dealt with by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is it not indiscriminate? Where/when were all the Star Wars poisons/toxins listed mentioned in the movies? Or are they taken out of derivative works? Why isn't the poison that made Nikki and Paulo from Lost appear dead (then be buried alive) listed? Not a single fictional toxin from any Dungeons & Dragons novels listed, but tons of Marvel and DC stuff. Nothing but in-universe descriptions with zero source (except for the Homeland Security training one, though it is technically fictional, it's not from an actual work of fiction). Where do you draw the notability/inclusion-exclusion line?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an entire book on the subject: Deadly doses: a writer's guide to poisons. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That book is on the use of poison in fiction (that is, mostly poisons that exist in real life). There appears to be not that much on fictional poisons (there is one chapter on creating such a thing according to a reviewer who has not read it yet). Thus I doubt it lists any of the poisons in the article under AfD (searching for a few keywords yielded nothing).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the topic in general here, not particular entries. The source demonstrates the notability of the topic. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.

Comment - the point is that the book is not entirely about fictional toxins, as Colonel Warden claims but about poison in fiction with only one chapter on inventing fictional poisons (intended for authors), and thus is not necessarily sufficient to establish notability of the subject (particularly, as a list article). If it offered a catalog of fictional poisons, then it would be clear evidence for notability, but it is not the case. ETA: even if the topic is notable, the complete lack of source and clear inclusion/exclusion criteria make the list itself unsalvageable without rewriting from scratch. --137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Kgrr has a point there. I still propose deletion of this page, but conversion to a category seems reasonable enough. A1octopus (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kgrr suggestion of conversion to a category is improper per the guideline WP:CLS and so is contrary to the general consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So few of these have articles (or even sub-sections within articles) that it's not a navigational list, meaning that the concept of fictional toxins has to be meaningful. I fail to see how multiple instances of "foo from the book/film/game foo turns the victim green and makes them foo their own kidneys" is anything other than a trivial intersection of otherwise totally unrelated fictions. "If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.". I would have no qualms in supporting a suitably referenced article on the subject of toxins in fiction which used noteworthy examples and was out-of-universe, but listing them willy-nilly in this fashion is forum-post fodder. Someone another 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list, and make a category also if wanted. There can and generally should be for all topics of this sort a list as well a a category, because a category can not indicate such useful browsing guides as the name of the fiction or the author, nor can it deal with the ones that are significant without necessarily being notable. significant plot elements in notable works may not be suitable for articles by themselves, but they can be suitable for inclusion in a list. Te present list is not indiscriminate -- it only includes those in notable works, which is a very sharp distinction, and I did not notice any of trivial significance in the work--if there are any, they can be removed by editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor components of fictional works. Not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good discussion with info from the works themselves, though it could use some cleanup and added citations from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak). I don't see this as an article that would appear in an encyclopedia, which IIRC is our basic guideline. It would be an interesting chapter in a reference book about Science Fiction (or other fictional works). Maybe that means its notable enough. I don't have a really good feel for this.David V Houston (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes. The article requires cleanup, but the appropriate place to deal with that is the talk page rather than AfD. (non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Children's Theatre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no WP:RS which give "substantial coverage" of this organization, just announcements and reviews of plays. The award is one given by the Seattle mayor and is hardly a major award, The only ELs are self published sources. There are no references, I believe that the subject of this article fails WP:ORG. It was prodded and deleted by User:Nyttend (15:27, 6 April 2010 Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted "Seattle Children's Theatre" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Un-addressed advert tag from July 2009, unreferenced, no indication of notability, appears to fail WP:ORG)). It was then re-instated by User:Tracer9999 [9] I have not been able to notify the artcile creator as the history is lost. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I withdraw my nomination as I have found enough RS to support the notability of the organization. I have added therm to the article. More is needed, especially for the history of the organization and the artcile needs a thorough cleanup. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I removed the prod because there is major news coverage and a prod is not appropriate for the removal. Also, its not just a mayors award. they also claim "2004 TIME Magazine's #2 ranking in the top five children's theatres in the nation." The news articles do not ONLY review plays. according to one article, They sell 200,000 tickets a year, present more premieres of new work than any comparable theater in the country, and that CTC and SCT are clearly the Big Two of children's theater in this country, there is even a book on amazon, Seattle Children's Theatre: Six Plays for Young Audiences.. and thats just from the first few google pages. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the statements in the article being supported by citations. As to the book, they published it themselves. I am not disputing the subject of the artcile, merely that at present there is nothing there to substantiate notability for Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in here, but wanted to express agreement with this: the article needs citations. Without them, the article does not meet our standards for quality. Note that is a different assertion entirely from the assertion that the organization covered by the article does not meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (sdsds - talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this article has mostly edited by someone at the Seattle Children's Theatre and that may be considered a Conflict of Interest. The editor in questions IP address 216.162.196.154 resolves to the organizations mail server at mail.sct.org. Im not up to date on COI.. But Im almost never comfortable with an org editing there own pages especially without disclosing they are editing. Just figured it should be mentioned -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to be terribly concerned about COI from a Childrens Theater - this is a different proposition from, say, a political campaign or a pharmaceutical company. It is natural that someone at the theater would want the article to be well written and cover what they consider important aspects of the theater; I would only object if any overly effusive content is edit warred over, or there is a scandal of some kind which the editor is seeking to repress. This is not the case here. Remember WP:COI does not mean you cannot edit articles in which you are interested, only that you cannot edit against NPOV due to your interest. Only then dos the "conflict" part of "COI" occur. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source and cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no current affiliation with SCT. At the time I created the article my only affiliation was as a customer of the services they provide to the community. I note much of the current article reads like promotional material, but also note that is not a reason for article deletion, which is a much more severe action than merely trimming the article back to a stub. FWIW the organization definitely does meet wikipedia notability requirements, even if only as a major tenant at Seattle Center, like the Space Needle and Pacific Science Center. Unless there is some suggestion those institutions are also non-notable? (sdsds - talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there is no way this organization fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not. No. Uh-uh. Oops. Apology accepted in advance, since WP:AGF requires assumption that assertion it does not resulted only from well-intentioned but naive lack of knowledge. (sdsds - talk) 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation for this Afd has been questioned. I came across the article whilst assessing un-assessed articles with the theatre project banner. I nominated a number for WP:PROD. If the prod was declined, I looked at them again and if necessary brought them to AfD. WP:NOTE#Notability requires verifiable evidence says:

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large, to support a claim of notability.

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

That is why, uncited, this artcile does not currently demonstrate notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue is an excellent suggestion. Quibbling over a detail in policy -- as a community of editors we should strive not to confuse the quality of an article with the notability of its subject! For anyone attempting the rescue: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Eog&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22children%27s+theatre%22+site%3Anwsource.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= (website of a major Seattle print newspaper) shows 'about 1,370 from nwsource.com for "children's theatre".' (sdsds - talk) 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that most of these are simply announcements of new seasons, play reviews, etc. That isn't substantial coverage. There are a lot of hits for Seattle Childrens' Hospital in there, also storiesabout the arrest and conviction of a theatre employee on child porn charges. I see taht someone has added thsoe - I don't think they are particularly neccessary as the employee had no conatct with children at the theatre and was employed on their website as far as I can gather. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was a pedophile working at the number 2 childrens theater in the united states. I think thats pretty notable. I don't think he took the job on accident. He didn't take a job at IBM. He took a job where kids are present. where did you read he had no contact with children? -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here, here, and here. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is the org going to say? please sue us?

"Hoke intentionally placed himself in a position near children," said Assistant United States Attorney Mary K. Dimke in her sentencing memo. "In the past three years, more than two-thirds of his viewing of the bulletin boards at issue were from his office, a business that caters to children."" <---seems to me over three years of noone noticing this is pretty bad. regardless.. thats more for the talk page. so we can discuss that there if you like rather then clutter the AFD. -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and Convert to Disambiguation Page for individual countries concerned. (Non-admin closure). A1octopus (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of power stations in the United Kingdom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this page in early January, then nominated the page under G7. But it was later contested by Polargeo, which I agree with. It is almost impossible to fulfil the purpose of this list; listing all power stations in the United Kingdom. Thus regional lists are now available, which covers this area. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to a disambiguation page for Lists of Power Stations in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. Since this page contains no information not already in those pages, but that (IMHO) the information in those pages is notable, this would seem the best way of doing it. A1octopus (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this should be turned into a disambiguation page. The articles cited by Al (List of power stations in England, List of power stations in Scotland, etc.) are a lot more comprehensive than this page, and I see no need to merge those into a gigantic page. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggestion that it is impossible to maintain this list seems absurd. The power stations in Great Britain are part of a single grid and dividing by principality makes little sense. If we were to subdivide, this would be better done by type - gas, coal, nuclear, etc - or by operating company. In any case, this is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had overlooked it when I read the nomination, but the same person who created the page (User:Rehman) is the person who is now nominating it for deletion. I think it's a case where someone had an idea, and then reconsidered it after writing began. When it comes to deletion, I'm less likely to favor "stomping the sandcastle" if a person has put a great deal of work on a project and is wanting to improve it. Another person did make some additions, but it would still be a large project to bring the three separately organized pages into one consistent article. When and if that does happen, then I would recommend following the organization for the Scotland page. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How we got here is unimportant as it's readers that matter, not editors. A reader who is interested in the UK's energy policy will not want to collate a variety of regional sublists and so it seems best to address the topic at the level of the state and main island. If the article in question refers to the smaller lists and summarises them, then we might get the best result. In any case, this seems a matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colonel. If i understood right, would you then agree if i convert this article to a disambiguation page like List of power stations in Asia? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a big help to readers, but truth be told, the editors matter more than the readers. In fact, readers contribute nothing to Wikipedia, although those of us who contribute do our best to make it a more enjoyable experience. And if a reader doesn't like it, that's their problem, they're as welcome to edit as anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It seems like deletion is out of the question here. Like i said above, would everyone agree if i convert this page to a disambiguation page? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If someone wants to make a gigantic article out of it later, good for them! It's the encyclopedia they can edit too. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I guess this discussion can now be closed? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kyriacou

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source he exist, or no reliable source he is a professional footballer Matthew_hk t c 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There no reliable sources that I can find that the player even exists, let alone passes notability requirements. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems hoax, aged 10 and made his professional debut? Matthew_hk t c 15:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable, and likely a hoax. A professional football player at age 10? I highly doubt that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronVonYiffington (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely hoax, information is unverifiable and person would be non-notable if information was verified. Jogurney (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty good hoax, hoaxalicious even, in that it stayed up for more than 6 months. This seems to be the lone creation of a SPA user. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Just in case this isn't a hoax, I've removed what would be unsourced gratuitous personal information. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, likely a hoax. --Carioca (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definite hoax. Giant Snowman 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Steve-Ho (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Kopp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Though a published academic, my Google Web, Book and Scholar searches do not reveal significant WP:RS about Kopp to indicate he meets the notability requirements of WP:PROF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Approximately seven papers by Kopp suggest he has not yet made a significant impact on his discipline, per WP:PROF, and the lack of secondary sources suggests he fails WP:BIO as well. Cnilep (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One publication with 0 citations: h-index of 0 (Author=(kopp d*) Refined by: Institutions=(BARRY UNIV) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI). Most of the article is a recitation of his schooling, followed by a final sentence stating that he is Shaquille O'Neal's advisor – which is irrelevant to his own notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Clear Delete. GS gives cites of 3 and 1. That's all. Fails WP:Prof. Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I got this deleted earlier by prod. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject of the article has provided (via OTRS 2010040610073287) a couple links showing a large number of articles authored by him: [10] and [11]. I'm encouraging him to provide more sources which may show he meets WP:PROF, so we'll see if anything else comes to light. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit I don't know the impact factor of the journal Business First of Louisville, but I have my doubts that even with these 14 papers the subject rises to the standard discussed at WP:PROF. Cnilep (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect to Bowie, Maryland. I will redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Bowie, Maryland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a recognized geographic entity by the USGS. See feature database: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic Toddst1 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bowie, Maryland, since it is so short. If it is ever to be expanded, can be rebuilt on last version before merge. Dew Kane (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:CHEAP, Dew Kane. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. If it's not in the USGS, and there's nothing here (hardly), why have it?David V Houston (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't find "unique contributions" convincing; there's no source that shows that he had any impact on the genre. Seems like a BLP1E. Shimeru (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keyontyli Goffney

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Puff piece about an unremarkable gay porn performer whose notability seems to derive from an arrest for burglary (see WP:BLP1E). Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A previous version of the article was deleted and it appears the subject's BLP1E issues are still there. Would the subject meet WP:PORNBIO without the robbery? Probably not. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that he would meet 3 in WP:PORNBIO, "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", since that's what it seems the video he and his brother starred in was. He would also meet 4, really, regardless of it being because of a single event. Silver seren^C 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This article was restored in the course of a deletion review.GBataille (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this goes beyond BLP1E and the single magazine article given as proof of notability doesn't go far enough to constitute significant coverage in multiple sources which we need to have an article. This article shouldn't have been recreated from the DRV. Them From Space 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one magazine source in the article. And do you disagree that me meets #3 of WP:PORNBIO? Silver seren^C 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. The first, because Goffney "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." CBS News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Details magazine are among the numerous sources that have covered him. And the article satisfies the criteria for a porn star biography, because Goffney has "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre," namely, gay pornography involving twins. A source quoted in the article describes one of the Goffney twins' performances as "'a pretty big deal' within 'black hard-core gay erotica.'" GBataille (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2011

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER, a future competition whose venue, competitors, etc. are not yet known is neither subject to sufficient verifiable coverage nor necessarily notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The article contains only a single sentence and a list of nations that may compete or may vie to host the event. Delete the page, with no prejudice against recreating at such time as verifiable information is available.

Note that I PRODed the page on 5 April with the concern, "A future beauty pageant that will presumably be held in 2011, but whose venue, contestants, etc. cannot yet be known. Fails WP:HAMMER." Prod tag was removed by the page's creator, Bigb0x, a few hours later with no edit summary and no changes to the page's content. Cnilep (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I missed this one last week when I was nominating the 2012 and 2013 contests for deletion, but I use the same reason as those two - i.e. that it fails Wp:CRYSTAL. (I originally started 2012's as well, but it was taken into its own AfD after 2013 was speedied.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmyers1976 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for your nomination of deleting my article "Miss Universe 2011" is unreasonable and ignorant. According to the "Rules of Wikipedia", any articles with provided sources are allowed. Therefore my article "Miss Universe 2011" is NOT to be deleted, because it is backed by reliable INTERNATIONAL sources. Besides, the venue of this year´s Miss Universe 2010 is not known yet as well, yet it has an article. No deletion. Full stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigb0x (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigb0x, please read WP:CRYSTAL. The Miss Universe 2011 article fits the description of the kind of article WP:CRYSTAL seeks to avoid to a tee. Your post above calling people "unreasonable" and "ignorant" violates WP:CIVIL, as does your insistence that "my article is NOT to be deleted." Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way, it works on consensus, and if the consensus is that this article should be deleted, it will be deleted. Also, since you said "my article", you obviously need to read WP:OWN.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above-mentioned rules of Wikipedia and I repeat it again, I don´t see any violations of rules cinsidering the creating of the article Miss Universe 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigb0x (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigb0x, the mere existence of a similar article does not automatically qualify as evidence that an AfDed article should be kept; in many cases, it is just a matter of no one having gotten around to AfDing the similar article yet. In the case of Miss Universe 2010, considering the fact that the exact date and venue of the event have not been announced, it does look to fail WP:CRYSTAL. I'm going to AfD it now that it has been brought to my attention.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the exact date and venue of the event have not been announced, WP:CRYSTAL does permit full discussions about possible venues, host cities, candidates, competitors, etc., as long as the content is verifiable and cited. However, looking at the current state of this article, there seems to be not enough cited content to warrant a separate page, and what is cited now could easily be merged into the main Miss Universe article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. There has been articles that Vietnam will be hosting the pageant once again for its biggest 60th anniversary of Miss Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhpham (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't an encyclopedic article, it's a calendar of events w/o enough verifiable information to become more at the moment. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are contests competition coming up this year then there will be a pageant on next year. there are information of what and where the pageant maybe heard. Of course I don't run this page but I know that it should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhpham (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2010

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

It has been confirmed by Miss Universe Organisation that Vietnam is chosen for hosting Miss Universe 2011. It is official. Don´t delete this article.

Sources:

http://en.vietnamplus.vn/Home/Miss-Universe-asks-Nha-Trang-to-host-2011-event/20106/10210.vnplus http://worldshowbiz.info/beauty-contest/vietnam-will-be-the-host-country-of-miss-universe-2011/ http://dantri.com.vn/c23/s23-405927/hoa-hau-hoan-vu-2011-to-chuc-tai-viet-nam.htm http://www.toquoc.gov.vn/Thongtin/Cua-So-Van-Hoa/Hoa-Hau-Hoan-Vu-2011-Se-Dien-Ra-Tai-Khanh-Hoa.html hhhv-2011-tai-vn.shtml</ref> http://globalbeauties.com/blog/?p=1022

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigb0x (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tajinder Puneet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Story with no independent reliable sources to back up its claim of notability. It claims to be one of "five popular tragic romances of the Punjab"; curiously, the four linked romances are all described as one of four popular tragic romances. As a side note, one of the main editors to the page is Tajinder.asr (talk · contribs). It's hard to tell if the name is a legitimate coincidence or if it's an author attempting to advertise via Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no showing of notability nor sources. (GregJackP (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a hoax. Salih (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a hoax. As opening statement mentioned, all the other poems in the series are identified as "one of four", and this claims to be a fifth. In addition, googling parts of the poem in question only brings up the Wikipedia page. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 15:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I smell a hoax. Kubek15 ^write/sign 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my original PROD; at best, all one can say is that this is utterly unverifiable, and the author, of course, has declined to provide anything that might serve as a source. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I took out the original CSD (A1) - I might have assumed a bit too much good faith, and therefore put a notenglish template on it. I didn't notice it was, in effect, No.5 of four... The author has not done much editing of late, except to remove the PROD template this morning. I have just put a G3 CSD on it, maybe that will get some better input from the original author. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University and college diversity forums

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested CSD - article creator and IP address repeatedly remove CSD tags. Non-notable essay which creator states is for class and has to remain up a month. No reliable sources, one ref to diversity progam at U of Wisconsin, one to unlated academic office. (GregJackP (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - class assignment with no indication of significance. Rklawton (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Rklawton. When professors assign writing tasks to students in terms of word count or page length, this is the sort of writing that gets handed in. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable third-party sources and borderline WP:SOAP (e.g. "We need to encourage..."; "We need to be more receptive..."). I share Rklawton and Smerdis of Tlön's frustration with student assignments that are more geared toward the need of the student or the class than the aims of Wikipedia. I would encourage students and teachers to see Wikipedia:School and university projects for discussion of best practices. Cnilep (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above reasoning. It appears to be an essay. --Pstanton (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; Wikipedia is not a place to post schoolwork. As to the independent merits of the article, it is on a vague topic, most likely a WP:CFORK from existing articles discussing diversity issues, and unencyclopedic in tone. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SNOW delete for unwritten first book DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ten swords

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

utterly non-notable project. No publisher, no designer, new author, written by a seventh-grader. Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: "OMG, I'm writing a book, let's put it on wikipedia!" With the sincere hope that the dream is accomplished, but delete we must for now.--Milowent (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes to Mr. Williams for future success, but delete this article for lack of notability, sourcing, and too much speculation on possible publishers, etc. Cnilep (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - best wishes for the author to come back and add the article once he has published the book and it gains coverage.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finish Line (pricing game)

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gallery Game

Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Shower Game

Articles for deletion/Telephone Game

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject is of a non-notable game played on The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) for a mere eight months 32 years ago. Article is completely unsourced, provides no images for reference and contains no relevant information that would warrant a separate article outside of what is already stated in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent; content is sufficiently covered in the pricing game list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Just redirect the article to the main article and merge the information there. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hansadutta Swami

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is largely unsourced since August 2009, and tagged. It is BLP and thus have to be deleted since article does not provide for verification on notability. Wikid ^as© 14:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I missing something? I see 10 footnotes/references. Could you fact tag the article so Wikipedians can see which areas need improvement? Chopper Dave (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- there are no reliable sources that are dedicated to this person. The only decent secondary source that is quote is New York Times 20 Nov 1988 however it is not about Hansaduta Swami, he is mentioned in passing. Among the '10 footnotes' are dead links ([12]), non verifiable notes, self-published dairy by another non-notable fellow Hari Sauri das and yet another self published source by Vedavyasa das (How reliable is that?) both are not complying with the core policy WP:V. As it stands the whole article is not just OR, it absolutely does not accert notability based on independend reliable sources. Wikid ^as© 13:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. I've also added some other sources. There's other stuff out there, it just has to be sorted through. Silver seren^C 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone would not look at the article and would think that reliable sources that support a notability were added, I provide the diff here of your edit. Wikid ^as© 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Silver seren^C 23:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I've also added some other sources." -- you did not. So your argument is not valid. Wikid ^as© 08:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Encyclopedic handbook of cults in America" - Google Books

"Hare Krishna Mantra Hits Hollywood" - VNN

These don't count as sources? Silver seren^C 08:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is a teritary source that mentions his name in passing and without a reference of any sources, second is a sectarian self publshed website, hardly or ever used as a reliable source. Wikid ^as© 09:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its a notable enough cult to be included in that handbook, and one of its key figures mentioned, then that counts to his notability. Dream Focus 07:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fairly notorious (therefore notable) iskcon figure, mentioned in Monkey on a stick: murder, madness and the Hare Krishnas By John Hubner and Lindsey Gruson, a major "expose" of the religion in the 70s and 80s. this book is a notable work in the literature on such religions. i think with a little rescue effort, this person can be easily shown as notable. i can tell you his name has stuck in my mind for 20 years, and not for nonnotable reasons (ie hes not my cousin or something). i dont have the tools to do the research on him myself. i of course would welcome NPOV additions, including any good works or neutral facts. im just noting that for his notoriety (deserved or not), he qualifies as notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with NPOV additions, the fact is that your argument WP:IKNOWIT is unnacceptable. The only basis on which one establish notability is reliable sources. At the moment there are (still) none that support any notion of notability. So unless you cite sources, your WP:IKNOWIT will not do. Wikid ^as© 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i know that "iknowit" isnt a valid argument. my apologies for invoking it even tangentially. the book i list IS a reliable source, i just dont know to what extent he is actually mentioned in the book. the scandals around this religion were a really big deal at that time, and this is the definitive account of the events, i believe. if i had the book, or was inclined to find a copy at a library and read it, i would add it as a RS. im hoping that others will be able to do so. Im simply saying that i believe there are reliable sources, probably just not as easy to find online at this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several sources already and Wikidas' criticisms of the sources appear to be unfounded. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely have not problem against your vote, except for you for some reason supporting poor sources on a different article's page Kirtanananda Swami. I would appreciate if you just add sources to the article to make sure you will illustrate that there are several sources that comply with notability guidelines. Nothing personal, just a request. Wikid ^as© 07:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i was able to read some of the content of "monkey on a stick" online, and it appears this person is a major figure in the book and the scandal, and has been vilified for years for his role, and has issued mea culpas admitting to damaging the movement immensely. so, all we need is page refs to the hard copy. obviously, i cant link to the online selections, as they are copyvios.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources out there. The Google news search shows him listed in different major newspapers for the gun stockpiling scandal. [13] Other sources already find add to his notability. Dream Focus 07:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Price

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gallery Game

Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Shower Game

Articles for deletion/Telephone Game

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, 100% unsourced article about a pricing game that appeared on only two episodes of The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) 33 years ago. No way this could ever be remotely notable to warrant a separate article outside of what is already covered for this game in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Only two episodes. Extremely unlikely to be the subject of a source, never mind the growing precedent that no pricing game has shown any individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Havassy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability borderline to questionable. No independent sources in article and little third-party coverage to be found. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, almost all the references are self-published. (GregJackP (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is independent coverage about this artist, I added sources in the form of external links. The article needs to be rewritten in accordance with encyclopedic standards. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources found. Yes, needs work. Ty 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the new sources (listed as external links), I can see notability, however the article still needs major work. I still see the following problems, none of which rise to the level of deletion:
- Self-published references need to be removed, unless they can be verified by reliable sources and cited. Currently that includes refs 2-3,5, 7-12, and 15-16.
- Original research references need to be removed, which are the e-mail interview with WikiProject refs, 1, 4, and 6.
- As cited, the Clubofthewaves refs give the appearance of being authored by Havassy - if so, they are self-published and need to be removed or verified by reliable sources. If they are the work of another individual, then that author needs to be properly attributed in the citation. Refs 13-14 and 17.
- The current external links need to be turned into proper citations and references. (GregJackP (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Adolf Hitler. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's health

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a article on the health of a person because the person was the leader of Nazi Germany? I don't mind a merge either. ~~I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as the original.:~~

Merge to Adolf Hitler. (GregJackP (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to Adolf Hitler, for now. I don't think there's enough detail (yet) to really justify forking the main article, but I concede that there are few individuals who have as much written about them as Hitler - so, if anyone would have an article about their health, it would be him. This might be a workable fork, and should be a redirect to the appropriate section of the main article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adolf Hitler, but clean up the close paraphrase of copyrighted materials and the considerable unsourced bits in the process. Cnilep (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in an abridged form. This is covered very concisely in Adolf Hiter#Health. Some of the links here should be added to the section in Hitler's article, and if there is some new information from a verifiable source, that can be included in an equally concise form (e.g., "he had gingivitis", add reference to ADA Journal article "Der Fuerhrer's Gum Disease") Mandsford (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge(Selectively merge) to Adolf Hitler. The title of the article surely causes some to say to themselves "His health? I thought he was dead!" There was much propaganda(originally published 1943) on the allied side about Hitler's health during WW2 and by many authors since. There has been much writing about Franklin Roosevelt's health during the war as well. Remove the unreferenced speculation has been widely tagged in the article without improvement. Even some of the "referenced" speculation is very doubtful. Hitler with asperger syndrome, because he was fascinated with architectural plans and models? A charismatic and manipulative aspie? Really? Edison (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added two other articles for deletion for the same reasons as above. The Syntax (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural objection This AFD is invalidated by the addition of more articles after people have !voted. By doing so, you make it look like the previous editors and I !voted to merge all three articles, rather than the one you started with. Please strike the late additions and start a separate AFD for the other two, and any more that occur to you. Edison (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment - I concur with Edison. I !voted to merge the health article, and have no opinion of the other two. (GregJackP (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Done. The Syntax (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and note that nom is blocked. fetchcomms☛ 23:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I cannot beleive we need a sparate article on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SW City

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged the maintenance templates on the article. Coren's bot tagged the article as a possible copyright violation. It has no references at all, and may possibly not meet the notability guideline if it relates to any subject. I'm not sure whether to keep this article or not, as a lot of the content is a source of sentences. Minima c (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a copy of a page from ActiveWiki, "a virtual encyclopedia dedicated to the Active Worlds software". It is described entirely in-universe, which may be fine for ActiveWiki but not for Wikipedia. In addition to the copyleft issues, notability is highly suspect outside the Active Worlds universe. Cnilep (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be original research about some fictional sci-fi plot element, or some activity of fans, related to a red-linked fictional franchise or game, but it is written in an unacceptably confusing in-universe style. It is also a copyright violation, as noted by Cnilep, unless the page at Activewiki is a copy of the Wikipedia page, or the Activewiki has licensing allowing free use consistent with Wikipedia's licensing. Even if these problems were cleaned up by an extensive re-write, the topic lacks evidence of notability. It seems to be part of a walled garden of articles (some as yet redlinks) about this fantasy universe. Edison (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice for reasons stated. NN, OR, the whole enchilada. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. Sorry, Syntax. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 20:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and weak keep or Merge with Active Worlds CompuHacker (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Sandberg (political scientist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mikael Sandberg does not seem to be a very notable scientist. Google doesn't bring up any biographical info, and he does not appear to be frequently cited. 70.82.134.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. Finding sources via a Google search is difficult, and I see no evidence his work is highly cited, has won any awards, holds a chair, or any other criterion that would make this person notable. Perhaps if others can find sources that I'm missing I could reconsider. PDCook (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Top GS cites are 14, 13, 8, 6..... Does not make WP:Prof #1 or anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A competent scholar, but not especially notable. Mid-career, no unusually significant publications. His webpage at Halmstad doesn't have a cv, but a Google Scholar search doesn't reveal anything special. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Near by Far

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested CSD. Fails WP:Band. GregJackP (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No records, not signed to a label, no news articles, no tour. Fails WP:BAND. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 13:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any news about the band. Has no records or label. Was created in Jan, 2010 so my guess is that it's a new artist who wanted a Wiki article to add to the rest of the websites. Fails general WP:N, WP:BAND, and WP:CREATIVE. OlYeller^Talktome 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article contradicts itself. It says they were founded in 2008, but active in 2010. They are also are not a notable band. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. Because redirects are cheap. Shimeru (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Punjabi Wikipedia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails our notability guidelines; there is no third-party coverage Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Assuming there is little or no outside coverage, but that the material in the article itself is verifiable via the sister wikipedia, I think we should have articles on such wikipedias despite not complying with all factors of WP:GNG. I have said this before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saterland Frisian Wikipedia (see also [14]), where I concede that these AfDs of smaller wikis almost always end in a redirect. I'd like to see them kept and hope consensus changes at some point.--Milowent (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you think articles shouldn't have to pass WP:GNG? You appreciate arguments should be within policy, not WP:FUCK POLICY. Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rowr, tiger! To be clear, I am not saying that generally all articles shouldn't have to meet WP:GNG. WP:GNG says "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." WP:N notes, like any guidelines, that "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In my opinion, its within the bounds of common sense to support having separate articles on individual wikipedias, instead of, say, trying to cover them all in one huge omnibus article (or not cover them at all). (Remember, WP:GNG says when it cannot be met, one option is to "consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context"; AfD is not the only or preferred avenue.) If you look at the concerns driving the notability guideline, the verifiability concern is reduced here because sister wikipedias should be able to provide verifiable evidence, such as when it was founded and when article milestones were met, and "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" (WP:V). So, to be clear, my !vote is far from a WP:FUCK POLICY WP:ILIKEIT position but is submitted in respect of policy (indeed, I provided you all the ammunition you need to support your nom in the links to my !vote)--Milowent (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially, the GNG doesn't apply, because it's based on WP:V, and the article data is verifiable? WP:V provides that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" - so the policy you're referencing to remove the need for reliable sources itself requires reliable sources. We cannot treat things differently because they are a WP project, and so we think the stats and the like can be trusted. The same would apply for any wiki run using MediaWiki. Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my observation is that wikipedia treats different things differently every day, and when some editor says something "cannot" be done, someone else at the same exact time is doing that exact thing. E.g., we have 83 articles for episodes of Ugly Betty, but others say these individual articles should not exist. If you want to couch my opinion within the strict confines of policy, you can say my position is that sister wikipedias are different and should be treated as an "occasional exception" to WP:GNG instead of having their coverage merged into some larger article or deleted entirely. The current practice, I concede, is to redirect to List of Wikipedias. But is there some portion of the Western Punjabi Wikipedia article that concerns you or which you believe harms the project?--Milowent (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about including ugly betty episodes; this is "one rule for us, and one rule for everyone else". And yes, there is something that concerns me; we don't, by policy, have any verifiable information there. And setting the precedent that "it's okay to include WP projects regardless of their notability" reeks of nepotism. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What information is wrong?--Milowent (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

verifiability, not truth, honey :P. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents W. Punjabi Wikipedia that is normalised a few months ago. I have added more information and I think with the growth of that wikipedia the article will also grow. We cant expect a wikipedia and an article in very good form in short time. Therefore there is no need of deletion of it.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is "we can't expect it to be notable, therefore we shouldn't delete it"? Anyone else spot the flaw there? I don't know about the Western Punjabi Wikipedia, but over here we have strict guidelines on what is and is not notable. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias unless sources can be located. Cnilep (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The existence of a Western Punjabi Wikipedia is not worth including in the Punjabi article (bar the usual template), let alone warrant its own. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, the reasons of its deletion are unconvincing.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? It doesn't fulfil our notability guidelines. You have provided no evidence to show that it does. There is no evidence that it does. Explain how this is unconvincing. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have updated List of Wikipedias to include both Eastern Punjabi and Western Punjabi projects. The two use different writing systems. Cnilep (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:GNG, which IMAO is fairly non-negotiable. --N Y Kevin @857, i.e. 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birney Elementary School Shooting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT. There have been no lasting effects and little geographical scope, the coverage is sparse, no more than what you'd expect and mostly limited to the US. Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it did happen in a school parking lot an hour before school hours, it's a stretch to call it a "school shooting" or even a "workplace shooting". This was a domestic dispute that had nothing to do with the elementary school itself, other than that's where the stalker happened to find his victim. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One person was shot and killed by a stalker, who was in turn shot dead by police. The victim was walking to work before school started, before the students were present. This has little in common with notable school shootings like Columbine. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTNEWS. See also the essay Wikipedia:News articles. Edison (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially found this article in newpage patrol, I added the first references. Indeed, after review, I do not think this shooting has enduring notability. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No please. Just a murder that falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it is not perhaps in the true pure classic american sense a school shooting, but a shorting on school grounds ; this arouses similar emotions. My own view, that I hope WP will come to, is that every murder is a matter of permanent historical importance. For the moment, I am content to argue that every murder with something distinctive about it is of such importance. It's a murder at a school grounds--and the latest statistic I can find, from 1995, says that "approximately 50 homicides or suicides happened on school grounds or on the way to school in 1995." [15] It has probably increased since then, but it's still a very rare event. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, now if you could just make an argument using our actual policy rather than some pipe dream idea of what you'd like policy to be, we can all move on with our lives. Ironholds (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rough day at the office, I guess. Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A journal submission on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to grind through. Close enough. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got my J.D. in 1985, so if it's a law review (or for that matter, any other type of academic journal), then I sympathize. April's bad enough without the added pressure, and I'm glad I never went on to the "publish or perish" line of work. Anyway, DGG's way more inclusionist than anyone I know, but he's basically a nice guy. I guess we all have our ideas about what Wikipedia should be. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Law Review (very hopefully) and another thing to work on for the Journal of Legal History. But yes, I'm sure DGG's a nice chap, and I apologise for snapping; I have a particularly short fuse when I feel people aren't addressing an issue (however correct or incorrect that feeling may be). Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys haven't noticed that I said comment, not keep. I know the difference between what I think Wikipedia ought to be and what it is. When I make an argument that I know is not generally accepted, I don't pretend that it is. But it is possible that others will feel that way also. Opinion gradually shifts, and if one doesn't venture to make an argument, change is impossible. The only reason I do not make a fuller argument is because I'm concentrating on prods these days. BTW, anyone who thinks I'm the most extreme inclusionist at afd isn't looking very carefully--perhaps I may be the one who people pay attention to because I make interesting arguments. And as for !voting, on this page I count 6 keep, 4 delete, and 2 merge. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count one user who can't do basic mathematics. There are five "votes" on this page, excluding your comment and the nomination. All are delete. Are you getting this confused with another page? Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z (Fusion Technique)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD accidentally removed by author, this is just simply a fantasy martial technique in a popular anime and manga that doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the very example of fancruft, a selection of content is of importance only to a very small group of enthusiastic fans. What a general reader needs to know about the technique is already covered in the character descriptions and chapter and episode summaries. —Farix (t | c) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over-enthusiastic fan creator, failing to notice that Wikipedia isn't a fan site and have some standards of relevance for created article. This article doesn't meet neither General Nobility Guideline requirements nor any Specific Nobility Guidelines ones. --KrebMarkt 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The technique is actually a pretty important part of the fiction of the series, but that doesn't grant any notability if there aren't reliable source that discuss it - which there are not. I have to believe that there's a Dragonball wiki somewhere that might be better suited for this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough reliable third-party information to justify a separate article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate the whole shebang. I recommend a redirect for the 2 BLPs (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AppLabs, Sashi Reddi and Makarand Teje

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company has no secondary sources, written primarily by one account. Can not find much on the internet to back up these claims made by the company website. Has enough information for me to not consider it a straight up speedy. Sasquatch t|c 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also lumped the company founder, Sashi Reddi, and current president, Makarand Teje, in here as their notability hinges on this article. If this AfD results in a keep, I will re-list them separately. Sasquatch t|c 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)2010 April 6[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AppLabs, suggest merging the people articles into the business. Reliable sources would appear to back up the article's claim that this business was a pioneer in independent software testing[16] and the personnel seem to have some academic presence as well[17]. While I am generally sceptical about the notability of non-consumer tech businesses, there seem to be enough sources out there to meet the general consensus about which such businesses should be maintained. And if I think such a business is notable, it probably is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Assyrian Fascism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Result: Delete (non-admin closure) as the article was POV, an attack page, and not sourced. Plus the article has already been deleted, but the discussion was not closed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic may be legitimate, however the content appears to constitute largely of original research and personal commentary. It seems that the article was created with the intent to disparage the subject, rather than to provide objective, factual information. Also, there are no sources to substantiate the term 'Assyrian Fascism' Reconsider ! 08:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you delete it

Dear Sir,
Is it possible to keep a stub of this article? I admit that I haven't had the chance to present more sources; however, if you keep the stub, there could be others who can present sourced materials. If the objection is not on the title, please try to save it for a while. I am just too busy to do any thorough research. I know people who are actually writing books in the matter who might help improve the article.

Sincerely, --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, the article has no references that back up its assertions. The UN link refers to very generalised problems affecting all minority groups and does not appear to mention minority oppressing minority. Without such backup, the article can be taken to be Original Research. Books still being written are of no account, and their authors' possible contributions to this discussion would also be OR unless they could provide checkable references. 'Assyrian Fascism' occurs on Google in four hits - two being this article and a link to it, and in two forums (not reliable sources). As well as being OR, this article looks like an attack. "Is it possible to keep a stub of this article?" - it is possible (as also is a result to keep it), but I recommend deletion. If a properly sourced version can be created (when the creator is not too busy - I know the feeling...), it can be put on at a later date. Until then, there's not enough there (in my opinion) to merit status as stub. Peridon (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this a joke? If you are so angry about Chaldean Catholics being counted in the ACS people, discuss properly. Shmayo (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Shmayo (My dear Assyrian Fascist). Thanks for showing up so that Admins can look at your contribution to see at first hand what an Assyrian Fascist is. I am surprised that you sound polite here, but anyone looking back at your contributions will easily see what kind of Assyrian Fascists you're. Cheers--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisqupnaia2010, regardless if he does this, please do not bring it up here - if it doesn't actually constitute a personal attack, it comes DAMN close. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that some pro-Assyrians say all the people are Assyrian, some pro-Chaldeans say all the people are Chaldeans and some pro-Syriacs/Arameans say all the people are Syriacs/Arameans. There already exist an article about this; Names of Syriac Christians. Shmayo (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Peridon. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Assyrian extremism, because in contrast to "Assyrian fascism", there is some literature describing this: "Assyrian extremist", "extremist Assyrians", "Assyrian extremists". ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article consists of pure racism and is an offence to all Assyrians. It should immediately be deleted. --Yohanun (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to all: I understand that this is sensitive topic, but please remain civil and make your judgments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than personal convictions. -Reconsider ! 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reliable source

I invite you to check the reference I presented regarding the term "Assyrian Fascism". This reference is taken from a reliable source, a popular website amongst Assyrians that is even defined in Wikipedia here. I am not the first to use this term, and this is not an Original Research. I am simply stating what Assyrians believe the term Assyrian Fascism implies. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a forum. See below about middleeastinfo link. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source

Check the second article I provided here that backs my definition and proves that it is not an Original Research. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a forum and therefore not a reliable source. Forums, blogs, aboutus and LinkedIn, and Wikipedia itself, are not accepted as reliable sources. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources (GregJackP (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Whatever else you can say about this, it's an opinion page of original research, and even if there's a subject to write about here, this text would need to be replaced entirely: So far, Assyrian Fascists have been spamming the web with their lies. Their actions are identical to those of the Nazi Germans and of those of Saddam Hussein. Hatred toward these Assyrian Fascists have been accumulating, and their actions have been separating our people. However, their aggressive fascist views will be eventually known to the world. Just like the other fascists before them, Assyrian Fascists will seize to exist.

I prefer:

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This very much flies in the face of WP:NPOV. Best to start over here and take a more neutral tone. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Escalating to speedy delete as attack page. No qualms if it doesn't go through. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really sourced, its POV, its an attack page. Consensus seems pretty universal in this AfD. --Pstanton (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this discussion as the article has already been deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CloudOne

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/CloudOne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Conflict of interest, not-notable (General Notability Guideline), technically a mute point, and Original Research.

A) Fails WP:COI - The creator of the article is a vice president of the company

John McDonald (Vice President of Services & Support) =?= Jpmcdon;

B) Fails WP:GNG - This company does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline.

C) Fails WP:POKEMON - If Wikipedia has an article for every 25 employee company, we will have a business directory of all small and not notable companies. Do not include in a list of non-notable companies.

D) Fails WP:OR reference 1 is self-published from their own domain http://www.oncloudone.net/Docs/pr/IBM, reference 2 does not mention CloudOne, reference 3 is self-published http://www.oncloudone.net/Docs/pr/Diem kgrr ^talk 21:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The only press coverage of this company is two of its own press releases. Not enough.--Chaser (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment the two references are not even in the press. The two references are original research. It's them writing about themselves. kgrr ^talk 01:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I understood. That was my point.--Chaser (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable "cloud computing" consulting business, referenced only to internal sources and blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giants, Monsters & Dragons, An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend and Myth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books), has been tagged as {{Notability}} since April 2009. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Is referenced about 40 times in Gbooks. As the subject is rather obscure and esoteric, and this one seems to be one of the most cited reference books in its area, i recommend a weak keep--Sodabottle (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major trade publisher, good recommendation from library journal, one of 2 books in a probably significant series, author is a scholar of these subjects. this is not a piecemeal coffeetable book designed exclusively for quick sales, and consisting mostly of pretty copyright free illos. I say its potentially referenceable and (heres my bias) one of the many books that deserve articles on WP simply because they are good sources for references in other articles. why does every single album seem to have an article, but maybe only 10% of books get them?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to concur with Mercurywoodrose, furthermore if we work together the community we can certainly get this book unorphened and even get it referenced in articles about Giants, monsters and Dragons! Keep this book. ^{(Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)}_babylarm 21:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Patterns

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, author seems to admit subject is not (yet) notable. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR by a WP:SPA with WP:COI issues ... utterly fails WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{02:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huma Abedin

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does an aide to the First Lady meet notability? No. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not inherently notable just for being a political aide, and many aides are not notable. However, she is the subject of many independent media stories in her own right, some of which are referenced in the article. Moreover, coverage is not just election campaign gossip but concerns her political influence and other topics. Therefore Keep. 192.100.124.156 (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is very easily significant coverage in reliable sources. I think it quite possible for a prominent political aide to meet the general notability guideline --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important player at the State Department. --AStanhope (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some other sources. She is clearly notable from the multiple amounts of coverage in news sources. Silver seren^C 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG w/o difficulty. Ray^Talk 22:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Poplar and Limehouse (UK Parliament constituency)#Candidates at the 2010 general election. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thornton (Politician)

Jim_Thornton_(Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Has appeared as a potential MP in the guardian and in the FT(sunday edition) and has made numerous appearances on BBC politics show

Links

Guardian online BBC IPLAYER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddj6 (talk • contribs) 2010/04/06 09:09:30

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The nomination is unclear - are you indicating that this article should be deleted because the person is non-notable, despite the sources you provide? Or, rather, do you believe the article should be kept due to the sources you provide? Some clarification would be in order, I think. The article's awful thin, and the subject is merely a candidate for office, so we might not have the notability we need to keep - but I'll withhold my !vote pending something from the nominator. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your point although I saw the nom as being clearly non-notable with a lack of sources. Mere candidates do not normally have sufficient notability to pass WP:POLITICIAN, which is what I based my !vote on - though if the clarification shows that I misunderstood, I'll reconsider. (GregJackP (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say redirect to Poplar and Limehouse (UK Parliament constituency)#Candidates at the 2010 general election, which WP:POLITICIAN prescribes as the general rule for parliamentary candidates. But with the "(politician)" it isn't really a viable search term. So alternatively, delete. This guy fails WP:POLITICIAN and does not appear otherwise notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he's an independent candidate, he's done well with the amount of coverage he's got. However, out of the two big sources listed, on was an article about independent candidates in general (mainly Esther Ratzen), and another was a debate where all the candidates in a constituency were invited (most notably because George Galloway is standing there). Good, but not good enough. Delete or redirect. If he does unusually well in the campaign and attracts a lot of media coverage as a result, I'd consider doing an article then. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, anyone with England deletion sorting on their watchlist is being sent to the wrong Jim Thornton. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-He also appeared on the BBC world service last night talking about the roles of independent politicians Ddj6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete His opponent from a mainstream party was recently deleted for lack of notability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Archer) and I see nothing to suggest that Mr Thornton is more notable. Paulbrock (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mkativerata. Ray^Talk 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to constituency: this is the agreed solution for unelected politicians. Press coverage does not make the notable. If elected, the substantive article can be recovered by reverting, but my guess is that the redirect will be up for deletion after the election. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (G4, recreation) by JzG. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian genocide

Macedonian_genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

LOL! Article is a POV-pushing and ultranationalist take on an issue covered elsewhere in WP (e.g. Demographic history of Macedonia, Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, National Liberation Front (Macedonia)). Please put it out of its misery.--Anothroskon (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I marked it as COI and POV some days ago, and there has not been any improvement since.--Dmol (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sourcing alone would be sufficient to kill this one. On those grounds alone, delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonian Genocide (earlier incarnation at Macedonian Genocide). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Scafetta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability requirements for academics. His primary claims to notability appear to be that one writer mentioned him (in Italian) as possible Nobel Prize material, plus some mentions in some blogs, which are not considered not reliable sources. Independent, reliable coverage of Scafetts is scant at best and non-existent at worst. Contested PROD; original author became quite contentious, saying notability guidelines shouldn't apply because Scafetta is young and the guideline favors older academics - maybe that's because they've accomplished more? See the talk page for the full, long-winded discussion. I anticipate this AfD will become contentious because of Scafetta's views on global warming (which I generally agree with), but my nomination for deletion has nothing to do with his stand, and everything to do with the lack of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Scafetta is young, but I would say Scafetta’s development of Diffusion Entropy Analysis meets criterion 1 in the academic notability guideline. Diffusion Entropy Analysis is a statistical tool Scafetta developed to study complex systems and he has published in a wide variety of academic disciplines. To publish in so many different disciplines is extremely rare. Now many other researchers have published using this same tool Scafetta developed. [18] And textbooks are using his statistical method.[19] Even if you disagree with this point, Scafetta is still notable. The guideline for notability of academics is found at Wikipedia:PROF. As the guideline itself points out, it is “best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply.” When determining if an exception applies, it is always best to put the interests of Wikipedia readers first and not to interpret the guideline too narrowly. I say At the foundation, an academic is notable if people want to read about him. Academics may also be notable under the general notability guideline found at Notability in Wikipedia which says "In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has received 'attention from the world at large' or has 'enduring notability', as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." So, the question is – are other people (credible journalists and scientists) writing about Scafetta? The answer is a resounding “Yes!” One Italian journalist has suggested Scafetta may win a future Nobel Prize in Physics for his introduction of a phenomenological theory of climate change. [20] Many important and widely read science blogs are writing about him. Climate Science, Roger A. Pielke's blog, has reported on Scafetta six times. Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That (readership at 3 million hits a month) reported on Scafetta four times. Other blogs covering Scafetta include Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre [21],Real Climate [22], The Blackboard by Lucia Liljegren[23], Reference Frame by Lubos Motl [24] and many others[25][26][27][28][29][30] People read about Scafetta's theory and research and want to know more about him. Wikipedia is the natural place for people to come. There is nothing Wikipedia will gain by deleting Scafetta’s article. Instead, I invite you to help make it better.RonCram (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realkyhick notes that I became contentious when he put the article up for deletion before it had a chance to develop. It is true that I was annoyed. His attempt to nominate the article for speedy deletion before it had a chance to develop is contrary to Wikipedia policy which specifically warns people to give an article time to develop. I have a full-time job. As a result, it takes me a while to research and write an article that is both informative and interesting. This article has improved since the first attempt to delete it but it can certainly be better and invite people to help me make it better. But there is no question Scafetta is notable.RonCram (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said in our discussion, the concept of "an academic is notable if people want to read about him" is impossible to determine independently and reliably, which is which we have these guidelines. RonCram basically wants us to bend notability requirements to suit his wishes, and trots out the old, tired concepts of "There is nothing Wikipedia will gain by deleting Scafetta’s article." He wanted us to give him 90 days to let the article "grow." Well, a WP article is not a plant, and such requests are often used by those who hope we'll forget about the article after a while and let it fall through the cracks. (I gave him more than a week, and he came up with nothing new. My own Google search came up with nothing else relevant, at least not in English.) If Scafetta meets notability requirements at a later time, we can always revisit the issue then through deletion review. But for now, no. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like my phrasing, we can at least agree on the Wikipedia phrase - "In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has received 'attention from the world at large.'" For Scafetta, the answer clearly is "Yes!" Not only are the science blogs talking about him regularly, people are writing books using ideas he developed. Scafetta's notability could not be any more clear. RonCram (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One specific problem: Do we have anyone independent of Scafetta that specifically says that he is the developer of Diffusion Entrophy Analysis? His paper with Gioglino (sp?) says so, but that's not independent, and the link to the story about teen pregnancy is behind a pay wall, so I can't verify it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Whilst I think the subject *is* probably notable I don't think the article or its sources establish that; the stuff about the Nobel prize is just silly and shows the level this article is currently at. Worst of all - no one cares: no-one is here William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William, if you agree Scafetta is notable, then work to make the article better - don't vote to delete it. It serves no one to delete the article. Scafetta will be featured in another important science blog or newspaper soon and people will want to know more about him. RonCram (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, whether people care or not is best measured by the number of people to visit his page, not how many people vote here. I see now the AfD nomination was incomplete. Now that it is complete perhaps more people will show up.RonCram (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the incomplete nom. Sometimes the Twinkle and Wiki software goofs up. I was wondering why there was such a lack of response. But Ron, notability is not measured by page views, nor should it be. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell William.RonCram (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK I'm not on first name terms with you. As for the nom - it has been complete for a while now. still, no-one cares. That says a lot William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, William, we have been on first name basis for years. There is no point in trying to be shy now. RonCram (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. When the best argument so far for deleting admits notability, it's time to close the AfD and work on improving the article. TMLutas (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We await your improvements with eager anticipation William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With all due respect, the idea that "an academic is notable if people want to read about him" is nonsense – we're all aware that this process is governed by well-established WP guidelines. That said, the subject clearly has quite a significant research record. WoS shows 45 publications with a citation list of 49, 47, 47, 34, .... (total cites approaching 500, h-index = 13), which I think is passable under WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Very Weak Keep. Citation statistics quoted by Agricola44 indicate marginal notability. Subject is nowhere near a Nobel Prize: wildly exaggerated by journalists. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' notable by the GNG. I consider notability by WP:PROF marginal, with his citation record in a very intensively watched field. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With nonessential/difficult to verify ("Perhaps he is best known....") content removed. --Dc987 (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLCash

PLCash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I was the original creator of the article, and was looking back over it to see if I could make it less of a stub, but I couldn't find enough material in the sources I listed to do this. The sources were either not notable themselves, or didn't mention PLCash as being noteworthy in some way. I have searched around again today and still have not been able to find any better sources describing PLCash. Short of dubiously loading the article with excessive amounts of OR, I don't think I could add anything worthwhile to it. With this in mind, I've re-nominated this article for deletion.

I messed up the Afd tagging a bit, this will actually be the article's 2nd time being nominated for deletion, the first being 5 August 2009. -- Brandished (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur, there isn't much out there to confirm notability. On point of procedure, this article was proposed for deletion via the WP:PROD process, and that was declined (here) when sources were added. This is the first actual AFD on the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Homebrew (video games)#PlayStation 2. History has been left intact, if sourceable content can be viably merged to that article or to a better target, then please do. It's clear that some of this information belongs somewhere, but the general consensus here is against a separate article. ~ mazca ^talk 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS2 Independence Exploit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed by IP with the reasoning "deprod - extensive thrid-party coverage all over the web shows notability, saving a dead platform from piracy does not seem a good excuse for censorship". I will take on his points 1x1:

extensive third-party coverage - while indeed there is a lot, they are mostly from unreliable sources. The only one would possibly meet WP:RS I found was this book which appears to be a how-to book, ie it doesn't show anaylisis or anything or talk about the impact this has on the industry. Since it is a how-to book it would be too close to the source for any meaningful independant analysis per WP:N as well.
Piracy issue, while we don't censor wikipedia, we don't go out of out not a guidebook teling people how to do things, which this article does, especially when they have potential copyvio implications. It is also not a repository for links and such to discussion forums and fansites for such stuff per WP:ELNO, which all of those appear to violate in some manner.
At the end of the day only the first section has any marginal value if all of that can be verified and found someplace to put, but even then I'd question that amount of detail in any other article as WP:UNDUE.陣内 _Jinnai 00:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage from any reliable sources. Mostly blogs and forums. Any usable information should be added to the Softmod article, as that's where all the info for other console softmods are. --15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Merge to Homebrew (video games)#PlayStation 2 and set up a redirect. -Thibbs (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I would suggest however that if this poorly sourced BLP hasn't improved within a short time, that it be renominated. The last comment in this AfD is probably the notable one. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul william day

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotional biography of a non-notable owner of a non-notable independent film studio. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on the criteria of notability and COI. Davnor (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have purchased the DVD redemption 101 and consider it to be quality science fiction. I think it would be a shame to delete this listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwhynotnow (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) — Davidwhynotnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Your personal opinion on the quality of the product does not really make its producer notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the fact that Paul William Day is notable in a local (Brisbane) context having been active in the music and film industries for many years. Unfortunately many of the citations aren't available online, but I will list them here in case anyone can verify them:

"Cyandra aim for a rhythm rock" (Nov. 5 1975) Telegraph Newspaper, Brisbane,
"Cyandra a new name to watch for in entertainment" (Feb. 10 1976) Gold Coast Bulletin
Cyandra appeared at Festival Hall, Brisbane in 1976 and at Cloudland in the 1970's
TV Interview with Ray Martin on The Midday Show (~1984)
ABC Regional Radio, Australia-wide Broadcaster (1999) Played Soul Purpose tracks and aired 2 interviews with Paul Day by David Busch [31]
Wendy Ferguson, (2000), "Seat of Christian Music", The Wesley Report - Distributed throughout Queensland
Belinda Berry, (Mar. 7 2007), "Out of this world - Suburban studio aims for the stars" Southern Star, Brisbane
Baz McAlister, (Mar. 21 2007), "Boldly Going Where No Brisbanite has Gone Before", Time Off Magazine [32]
TV Interview on Channel 9's "Brisbane Extra" You Tube link at [33]
Soul Purpose was played on Rhema radio stations on the East Coast of Australia, along with several radio interviews.
Soul Purpose also appeared at many large concerts and music festivals including Godfest 99 and Godfest 2000 (Taree), "Ashes to Life" at the Brisbane Riverstage 2000, National Gospel Happening in Canberra 2001 [34], Black Stump Festival [35], MarchFest Kangaroo Point [36] 2002, 2003, 2004, Peace and Love Concert 2003 - King George Square, Brisbane, and the "Reach Out Christmas Spectacular" at the Logan Entertainment Centre [37] 2003.

Motleybird (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) — Motleybird (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notable in a local context isn't notable in a Wikipedia context. In order to meet notability guidelines, a person must have been the subject of significant independent coverage. This generally means press coverage at least at the regional level, beyond mere fluff pieces talking up local talent. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of those articles are at the local level but the Telegraph (1) and The Wesley Report (6) and Brisbane Extra (9) are at the state level, and the interviews on Midday (4), ABC radio (5), and Rhema (10) were broadcast nationally to audiences of up to one or two million people. In Australia that's usually considered to be significant coverage.

Motleybird (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep In good faith toward Motleybird's sources, it would seem that this individual has moderate and sourcable notability in Australia, which makes him notable enough for en.Wikipedia. I would encourage that Motleybird's sources be added to the article, as unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs have short lives. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak) per above commentDavid V Houston (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm all for assuming good faith, but given that Motleybird (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account created after this AFD was launched, and that none of his sources are reliable or verifiable, I'm not sure that they constitute valid sources for a biography of a living person. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denham Roundabout

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a road junction, yes a slightly unusual one but others of the same type exist, not significantly notable. ZoeL (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's the end of a major motorway and only the magic roundabout (I know of) which is connected to a motorway, making it notable in my opinion. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a matter of opinion, the article contains no reliable third party sources that give significant coverage to the roundabout. ZoeL (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as a major intersection, but additional sources needed and should be available. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is an intersection of notable roads that seems notable in itself. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not enamoured of the view that features of local geography are automatically notable. It doesn't find any direct support in wikipedia policy, and nor does a blanket presumption serve the interests of verifiability for features that lack coverage in reliable sources. However, WP:GNG should be applied sensibly: significant is an elastic adjective that can be stretched for uncontroversial subject matter and tightened for subjects like BLPs. In this case, I think there is enough, particularly the coverage that appears to exist in the first source on this gbook list, which appears quite reliable: [38]. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Motorway junctions are notable. Were this merely a suburban roundabout, it ought certainly to have been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would add to that this is much more notable than your average motorway junction. Of course this is original research, so I won't accompany my statement with a bolded "keep", but I know from personal experience that this junction is very well known to the millions of drivers who live in West and North-West London and the nearby parts of Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Hertfordshire, and was notable even before it became a motorway junction when the M40 was built. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offaly and Waterford hurling rivalry

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This is a non notable "rivalry", despite the addition of one local source which describes this very occasional run of themill meeting between two hurling teams as such. Two games is not really sufficient to justify this article (and one dreads to think howmany similar non notable articles can be made about any two sporting teams that played in the top league together at one time). The same newspaper also discusses things like the the Waterford - Cork rivalry[39], or the Waterford - Tipperary rivalry[40], or the Waterford - Kilkenny rivalry[41][42]. Or else there is the rivalry the Waterford hurling club has with Wexford[43], and apparently also with Antrim[44]. Oh, and the rivalry with Clare shouldn't be forgotten either.[45] Perhaps it would be more interesting to write an article about which top league hurling team Waterford doesn't have a rivalry with, according to their newspaper. This is just run-of-the-mill sports coverage, nothing exceptional or notable enough to base a specific Wikipedia article on. Fram (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable article that could lead to a possible 1023 similar ones for hurling alone, let alone other sports. Mention of these two games can easily be added to both county articles. ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Two previous match-ups" isn't much of a rivalry in any sport. Mandsford (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely un-notable. How many deaths and maimings? None. Plus local antagonisms are a natural part of GAA sports, and again un-notable. The sports press are always looking for this sort of thing when there's no real news.Red Hurley (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that this rivalry is significant enough to warrant its own article and the content could easily be included in the relevant counties articles Teester (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Australians imprisoned or executed abroad#Thailand. Shimeru (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Halliwell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E; subject does not appear to be individually notable enough to merit inclusion; the crime itself doesn't seem to be that notable either. Paul_012 (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was plenty newsworthy at the time but a clear case of BLP1E. I now believe that these articles don't belong in Wikipedia. Holly Deane-Johns on the other hand is notable and some of this could possibly be merged. –Moondyne 09:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E, I have expanded the notes on Halliwell in List_of_Australians_imprisoned_or_executed_abroad#Thailand. Gnan garra 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Australians_imprisoned_or_executed_abroad#Thailand as a viable search term. A clear BLP1E: it is much more appropriate to succinctly cover the details in a list than purport to write a biography of the subject. Come to think of it there are a few more entries in that list with separate articles that could be due for a bit of axe-swinging. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hayward

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP1E; notability of subject as athlete is not well-established; coverage about event already in Warren Fellows article (which should perhaps likewise be converted to an article about the event instead). Paul_012 (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rugby league record (now added) makes him clearly notable.The-Pope (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to addition of rugby league record. Freikorp (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote this article four years ago so I'm obviously not a neutral voice here, but I'm surprised to see it nominated for deletion, especially under a BLP criteria (Hayward died nearly 20 years ago). Certainly, Hayward is now most known for his drug trafficking conviction and his connections to various infamous criminals, including Neddy Smith, but the drug arrest in Thailand is definitely not the only basis for a claim of notability and I don't think 1E reasonably applies to an article which, at the time of AFD nomination, stated in the second sentence that the subject was an athlete who had reached a professional level in two sports (rugby league and boxing). Hayward's story still gets mentioned in the media today. As an example, in 2002, he was listed at number 3 on The Daily Telegraph's list of Australia's "Top 10 Scandals" (Ray Chesterton, "The Top 10 Scandals", The Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2002) and he is often referred to in stories involving Australian athletes running off the rails, for instance "How Footy Heroes Go Bad" in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2008 and "Dark Knight Star on Drug Charges" in WA Today in December 2009. These two articles don't give significant coverage about Hayward but they do show that 30 years after his arrest and 20 years after his death, his story is still known and referred to by the press. His case is also discussed in numerous books about Australian crime and drug trafficking, including the significant coverage in Fellow's bestselling book The Damage Done and Neddy Smith's bestselling book, Neddy. Google Books has two other books which contain at least some coverage of Hayward's case - Alfred McCoy's book Drug traffic: narcotics and organized crime in Australia and Bob Bottom's The godfather in Australia: organised crime's Australian connections. There's also some sources in Factiva's news archives that show that when Hayward was released from prison in 1989 and deported to Australia, he generated further controversy and media attention by attempting to auction his story to the current affairs shows, an early example of attempts at chequebook journalism in Australia. There's plenty of sources around that verify his playing career but finding significant coverage of it is more difficult, no doubt due to the fact that his playing career was in the 70s, predating most online archives, so most of the modern coverage is in relation to the drug trafficking, but in the 70s he was considered an Australian rugby league "star" (for example, there's a reprint of an article here [46] which was published in The Bulletin in 1977 about the NFL's Manfred Moore visiting Newtown which refers to Hayward as "the Newtown star Paul Hayward" and this article published in 2009 in The Brisbane Times, "Bird can play on despite jail sentence" also refers to him as a "league star". He was notable enough as a player to have his own Scanlens trading cards in 1976, 77 and 78 (Ebay's obviously not a RS but for informational purposes you can find images of the cards there). I will add some more sources to the article when I have a bit more time, but I really don't see any need to delete this article. Sarah 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of national capital city name etymologies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The scope of this list is too broad to provide useful information as an etymology list. Unlike other pages in Category:Lists of placename etymologies, this list attempts to discuss information about worldwide capital cities, most of which don't share a common cultural or linguistic origin, and the result is a page simply duplicating content properly located in other articles. Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's sourced, and the etymology of place names is an encyclopedic topic. It's also way too long. At most, one line is all that's necessary to tell the story of a place name's origin, and a link is provided to people who want to know the rest of the story. The paragraph devoted to Tirana, for instance, would be no less interesting if it simply said "From the Greek "tyros" (Τύρος) which means dairy", and a link for people who are curious about why the capital of Albania would be named after a dairy. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 203 countries in the world, its hard to keep a list incorporating them all short, although yes some of them really should be much shorter than they are. Outback the koala (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCASE. There is nothing in common about them that seems to make it worthwhile to bring the names of all the capital cities from around the world onto a single page like this. It makes more sense to have the etymology of any given city name in the article on that city. Dew Kane (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A well-written list can tell a good deal of information at a glance, such as List of current heads of state and government or List of national capitals. In addition, not every article about a place mentions the etymology of the place name. However, I do feel that this list is too long, and scrolling through it is almost as slow as clicking on the article name for each city on the list. Mandsford (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although its missing a number of states and their capitals. Keep it, expand it, and source it better. But don't delete useful content like this. Outback the koala (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Outback the koala. Str8cash (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while it's way too long, and contains multiple cities (I don't see how they all can be the capital), I think it's a useful and interesting list with an overarching themeDavid V Houston (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could use a serious copy-edit (some etymologies are plain wrong, many seem copy & pasted from other articles) but I don't see the problem with keeping it. I can imagine an interested someone reading the page. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, hoax, IMDB is user-editable and therefore not a valid source by itself. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Twits (2012 Film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, my original prod said "Fails WP:CRYSTAL, does have IMDb page, but nothing else." There is an IMDb page but since it is not yet released the page is only available on IMDb Pro and a Google search returns nothing but the IMDb page. Note: Author has a history of creating pages that have been tagged either with CSD or PROD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. By the numbers it's an easy keep, although my sense of the discussion is that its a much closer call. I do think the wider discussion concerning the boundaries of broadcast station notability is well-considered. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMCN (FM)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Radio station having questionable notability, no substantial coverage in sources given. Article consists primarily of a program guide. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All American radio stations are notable and have been deemed as such in the past, and despite the coverage area that barely gets 2/3 of St. Paul, this is no exception. FCC licensed, although I do agree the program guide can be purged. Nate • (chatter) 08:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Appears to fail notability. It is an FCC licensed station, though with an educational license, and originates much of its programming in its studio. It has had these licensed call letters since 1979. Such stations have generally been kept in past AFDs (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media and the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media), although there is no policy which guarantees inherent notability for all such activities. The fact that it only transmits with 5 watts of power and only gets out a couple of miles is a negative factor, as is the fact that it goes off the air in the summer and between terms; this makes it seem more like a hobby or vanity operation than a "real" radio station. If it had a several hundred or several thousand watt transmitter and maintained a daily operation its case would be stronger. The campus independent paper said that "the station is not popular" and "listeners are scarce" and those who do listen mostly use the webcast. I could find nothing but directory listings or passing references at Google News Archive and Google Books. Student activities such as chorale groups have had a great many articles deleted when there has been a better case for notability. Edison (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Speedy Close - All radio stations, be them FM, AM, LP, CC, MW or defunct share a strong notability. Article has three sources given. There is no "questionable notability". Request speedy close of this AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A directory listing in a database is not "significant coverage" for purposes of notability, nor is their own website "independent." Where is any guideline or policy which backs up your claim of universal inherent notability for all low power hobby broadcasting activities, which put out no more power than my CB radio? They are comparable to a college musical or dramatic group, club, or intramural sports team. A fine hobby, but not necessarily deserving of an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Please see WP:NMEDIA and WP:BROADCAST. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both of your links go to the same essay, which mentions "even a 10-watt station" at a school "may be notable" (rather than "is automatically notable.") This one is only half of what the essay cites as a marginal station. An essay is not a very powerful rule for granting automatic notability to a hobby activity on a campus which apparently has not gained significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, as a notable radio station would. Edison (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I weren't mistaken, I would say you are just looking for a reason to go around precedence and notability and have this article deleted. You have been given many reasons, several have voted keep, as an admin, you should know that radio stations enjoy notability and have precedence to back that up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, FCC-licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable, particularly those holding full AM or FM licenses. Taking into account its days as a carrier-current station, the station has been on the air for better than 50 years. Information regarding the station's history that could flesh out the article is available from primary sources, and it's hard to believe that it could have operated for this long without some coverage in secondary sources, even if those sources aren't easily found. In the meantime, the trinity of standard radio station article sources - the station's FCC record, Arbitron's quarterly survey, and the Radio-Locator listing - is already present. Thanks for whoever removed the program guide. Mlaffs (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Directory listings do not prove notability, in general. ~~I could not find them in Arbitron. Please provide a link.~~ Edison (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, and I didn't intend to suggest they did — my apologies if that was unclear. My point was more to make it clear that the article wasn't completely unsourced. The directory listings do point to verifiability, though, which is useful. Also, an industrious editor making use of something like the FCC records can uncover information that might help in the search for other sources that would buttress the claim of notability. For example, the station has held other call signs in its history - might those lead somewhere? Given when the station was first licensed, might it have received one of the last class D licenses that were issued? Not sure, but would be interesting to find out. Mlaffs (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[47] says that in 1978 the FCC set 100 watts as the minimum power a station could broadcast at, while previously class D stations could transmit as low as 10 watts. WMCN broadcasts at half of that micropower. Is WMCN a "low power FM" station, like class L2 (1 to 10 watts)? We have many articles about LPFM stations, which are identified as such, like WOMM-LP (whose FCC listing describes it as "FL Low Power FM" with 100 watts of output. There is the whole category of [Low power FM stations]. Low-power broadcasting says L2 is considered "amateur class D for international purposes" so they are indeed comparable to ham radio or my CB radio insofar as having one should not confer automatic notability. The FCC just says "FM Full service" with the license granted in 2003. Yet they have only a token transmitting power and shut down for weeks at a time. A bit puzzling. Edison (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't technically correct (and may have changed) as WPEB in Philadelphia is a full-power station (not low-power FM) and operates at only 1 watt of power as it is licensed. I have seen a couple other stations that operate at only a couple watts and are full power. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a newspaper with a circulation of 1 copy. The last time MNCN mentioned their webcast audience, they said it peaked at 30 simultaneous listeners. Edison (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah on, Monday, March 27, 2006....so I think they probably picked up some web listeners since then and that doesn't factor in radio listeners and that doesn't take anything away from the notability that station enjoys. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what policy or guideline grants automatic notability for a 5 watt, seasonal, student activity, even if licensed? A ref to show the increased web audience, and some significant coverage in independent and reliable sources would be helpful. (Their webcast does not work with Windows Media Player, but does work with RealPlayer). Edison (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you two of them above. You didn't like either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like them just fine. But I pointed that "they" were both just one essay, which cannot confer inherent notability on some class of article subjects. I could write an essay that says every mail box is notable, but it would not make it so. Edison (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what Dravecky said. You are fighting awful hard to get rid of this radio station and override long standing precedence and notability standards. Don't seem right to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally notable, per dozens (hundreds?) of discussions, as infrastructure like a major highway where easily-Googled press coverage is not always available. In any case, a Google News search does turn up some coverage in St. Paul Pioneer Press and other sources. The station's coverage area may be small relative to a 100,000 watt blowtorch in Montana but its location in the heart of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metroplex means that tiny signal may cover as many people. In any case, popularity is not a test for notability. - Dravecky (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A link to the source you found would be helpful, if it is more than a passing reference. Edison (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I've been hip-deep in other article rescue tasks. I've significantly expanded and referenced the article. Given the station's 30-year broadcast history and location in the heart of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area I feel certain that even more data is available in offline sources, especially from the pre-web 1980s and early 1990s. - Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can any of the keep !voters please provide sources rather than just asserting they exist? Stifle (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment As previously stated, FCC licensed stations are notable. As Dravecky said, "popularity" is not a test for "notability." There are sources within the article. But it seems as though people are ignoring that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No guideline or policy has been provided to back up the assertion of "inherent notability" for every hobby activity student radio operation, even if it has an FCC license (like my equally powerful and longer-ranged CB radio has). And which of the sources are reliable and independent and have more than passing reference or directory listings, as required by WP:N?? We need more than handwaving assertions that "THEY ARE NOTABLE!!" or "I LIKE IT!!" for radio stations with output power way less than the light on my front porch. Edison (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~You sir are a liar.~~ I have provided two (!) guidelines and you tossed them aside. Also, this is a clear keep, yours behind the down vote, so this is a moot point. Take your hatred for radio stations and your "I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT" eye covering of the guidelines in front of you and precedence set and take a hike. Your lying above shows you are here just to see this deleted and nothing more. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides totally violating the policy on civility and policy forbidding personal attacks, you do not seem to understand that the ONE essay you have linked to is NOT A GUIDELINE, let alone two guidelines. In addition, you violate the guideline requiring an assumption of good faith, by claiming that I have some absurd "hatred for radio stations" rather than a sincere doubt that this one meets the notability standard. In the past I have !voted to keep many articles about more notable ratio stations, and have contributed significantly to many radio and TV station articles. Please drop the ad hominem attacks and look for evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky and Mlaffs above. Licensed station, serves the public interest even at flea power. It's only a matter of time before we have an official policy on this subject.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 19:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, and a comment. Stifle/Edison, I haven't been home a lot over the last couple of days, but I have dug around to find some coverage of the station. Articles can be found from April 2, 2010, October 2, 2009, September 19, 2008, September 28, 2007, October 13, 2006, and February 10, 2006. This is not broad coverage, as all of the articles are from the same publication, but it is a start. I have not yet been able to find anything in electronic form from the local dailies and I suspect that it may not be possible to do so, particularly if the station's popularity has waned in recent years. However, given that the station has been in operation for about 50 years, and licensed for most of that time, I'd again suggest that it's highly unlikely there hasn't been some coverage in the local media over that time.

I'd also ask if it might be possible for people to take a deep breath. NeutralHomer, as much as several of us have been through a number of these deletion discussions and seen how they tend to turn out, it's not outrageous for an editor to question whether the station is notable and there's certainly nothing sinister or personal in doing so. Edison's original !vote was quite well-reasoned, and they are correct, in that there are really only two places within the WP namespace that discuss radio station notability - one of those is an essay, and the other is simply a summary of common outcomes of deletion discussions. Neither of those carries the weight of either policy or guideline, and it is entirely possible for consensus to change. Whether it has or not may well come out of this discussion, or another similar one at some point in the future. If this were one from the LPFM class of stations, which broadcast at a similarly-low power level, it might be even less cut-and-dried as to whether or not it's a keep - I believe there have been "-LP" stations deleted in the past, as there have also been "-LP" stations kept in the past. Again, there's nothing personal about this. We've worked well together in the past, even as recently as a couple of days ago, so I hope you'll appreciate that I'm coming from a place of respect when I say that, although Edison hasn't asked you to, I would appreciate it if you'd strike your comment above regarding his/her motives - it really wasn't called for and it doesn't help the tenor of the discussion.

Edison, I think this discussion may have highlighted a gap that concerns members of the radio stations project, as MrRadioGuy alluded to above. Additionally, given the lengthy history of the station, I think that characterizing it as a "hobby" station is a little pejorative. There are countless college radio stations across the country, many of which broadcast only on the internet or on an "unlicensed" basis, and there's rarely been any argument over the fact that they don't have "inherent" notability. Those that have been challenged and been kept were able to demonstrate a significant history, coverage, etc. Otherwise, it's the license that's generally been the bright line in the past, and consensus in the past has been that that's not an unreasonable standard, particularly where it's a full license rather than an LPFM one. Mlaffs (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because you asked politely (thank you) and that, yes, we have worked together I wish not to tarnish that working relationship, I have struck my above comments with all but one sentence left in the open as it was not rude. If anyone wishes that to be struck, let me know.

I think though Mlaffs and MrRadioGuy bring up a good point. There needs to be a specific policy, let's say WP:RADIOSTATION (with one for TV stations too) that says that all FM, AM, and LP stations are notable and allowed, this would include current, past and defunct radio stations that were FM, AM, or LP. CC and MW stations may be brought up for discussion as they don't share the same notability as FM, AM, and LP. Unlicensed stations are flat out not notable as previous discussions has dictated. This would include Part 15 stations and pirates. Notability doesn't equal popularity, ratings, listenership, webstream listernship or any other form of listernship. Notability equals an FCC license (which all pages link to in External Links) and all FM, AM and LP stations must have by law. I think that is a good start to a policy and would cause us all from having these discussions where things get a little heated (my fault) and we start repeating ourselves. My fear is, if this doesn't pass, ALOT of work could be in jeopardy as well as the entire radio station Wikiproject to multiple AfDs. But I don't write policies, I write radio station articles, so you all would have to weight those options first before taken this up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks. The language could be perfected on the talk page of WP:N or a separate guideline could be worked into a consensus and made a guideline simply by labelling it as such when there is a consensus on its talk page that it is ready. This discussion could proceed directly to the talk page of WP:N, to try and agree on a line to be inserted. I have worked on such separate guidelines which were torpedoed and ultimately labelled as "rejected" or "essay" by deletionists, inclusionists, or folks who just hate "instruction creep," but the essence of the rejected guideline eventually made it into the main notability guideline or an existing subguideline. Some editors opposed blanket notability for every member of some large class of organizations which never seem to get the sourcing needed for GNG, since Wikipedia is not a directory or a mirror of every government database. Blanket notability usually just goes to things like navy warships or legislators where there is a reasonable presumption that somewhere (maybe in old pre-online newspapers) there are articles, like a long-defunct radio station which was once a major news source in some town. It can be hard to find reliable and independent sources for low power stations, but I have done so for some. There might need to be some screen for 1 watt stations which got a license but never broadcast, or whatever, just to keep out thousands of permastubs. There are doubtless some very low power stations whose peak audience is a mere handful, if the local airwaves are crowded with good stations and the programming is wretched and occasional, and such might indeed be no more notable than the fraternity softball team. Certainly some pirate station might be notable. Certainly some online-only "radio stations" could be notable. We have had deletion discussions about campus "radio stations" which only "broadcast" by the PA system in the cafeteria. Since Wikipedia:Notability (media) was rejected, let's just open a discussion under "broadcasting stations" on the talk page of WP:ORG, unless someone feels WP:N talk page makes more sense. I have opened such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Broadcasting stations. Edison (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a station, in Arizona I believe, that had the license, but not the license to cover (the last true step before broadcasting). The company went under or something and the page was deleted since it technically wasn't a true radio station. Another example is WPRZ-FM...it ain't there. That is cause while it is on the FCC website, it is just a license and not notable enough since it is just in constuction permit mode. So it was moved to my userspace. Essentially I made the page too early. These are examples of what could be considered "not yet notable" and be subject to AfD, but mostly moving to userspace until it crosses that notable line (which doesn't take long). The defunct stations (there are two in Virginia at the moment listed), I think since they were licensed and some do come back should carry that notability clause. I don't think we should say "no license, no page". Like those two stations in Montreal that broadcast from the 20s. LOTS of history and references, but they are off the air (defunct) due to the company pulling them offline. We keep those around cause they are historic. So, I think some lauguage could be built to specify what is notable, not yet notable and just plain and simple not notable. Most stations (Mlaffs and Dravecky are working on some now) have inline references to the FCC license and other information. Some others are just listed at the bottom. Doesn't make them any less notable, just we haven't gotten around to them yet. :)

I think the lauguage of the new policy, be it at WP:N (WP:N#RADIO anyone?) or at WP:RADIOSTATION (or whatever) should list the following....EDIT(see here for the full updated idea)

Who here thinks this is a good start and would like to add to it? We can take this to a user's talk page, work on it, vote on it as a group and then take it to the WP:N talkpage and let them hash it out. I again voice my concern that if we do, there is a possibility that there could be a backlash on radio station articles with multiple ones being nom'd for deletion. I think that should be put in the language too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Malik

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced biography of a subject who isn't even named in full enough to be able to identify him. Even if identifed, notability isn't made out, the experiences of this solicitor are little different from many other solicitors in the UK. NtheP (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be this guy. I agree with the nominator that he appears thoroughly unnotable as a professional. The only thing that interests me is the Order of the British Empire: if that is a major award per WP:ANYBIO and can be verified, perhaps he gets across the line on that basis? None of the other awards or nominations are notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article only says he was nominated for OBE by an unspecified MP, not that he was awarded it. And the website of the law firm doesn't give any info about the individual(s) involved - under "about us" "our team", it's "coming soon". Searching the Law Society website by postcode given on the Malik Law website produces no hits; searching it by "Malik" produces "Pembroke Solicitors trading as Malik law" with one solicitor, and its website gives no info about individuals. All a bit odd. PamD (talk)

Indeed it is, I can't find any verification of either being nominated for, or having received, the OBE. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that is sufficient notable. I declined the speedy, but I am having second thoughts about that. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think "featured in high profile magazines", "recipient of several awards" and "nominated for an OBE", when the awards and magazines are specifically identified, well and truly cross the bar of a credible claim to significance or importance. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V Someone getting the OBE should be a little more conspicuous. Considering that this is likely a BLP situation, that only adds to the lack of reason to keep this article. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as anyone can tell, the OBE wasn't awarded just nominated. NtheP (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the WP:V concerns from me. It doesn't seem clear and there's no reference there, and you'd think there'd be something given even an OBE nomination from the article creator. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After I accidentally googled "Dr Malik" when I meant to put it in WP search, I found the website http://www.drmalik.com/, which lists several books he's authored, and Amazon cites him as "Akbar Malik" or "Akbar Ali Malik" - and googling the latter finds a couple of interesting 2006 newspaper stories http://www.carter-ruck.com/Miscellaneous/?page=59 and http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007_02_06/uk/apology.htmand him being suspended from practising law for 6 months in Nov 2007 - http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/consumers/SDT/mar08/Malik-9685.07.pdf . So quite a colourful character, though these sourced events don't appear in the current article! PamD (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to include this, from 2000: PCC condemns bogus asylum firm lawyer- there might be the makings of an interesting article here. PamD (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tidied this article, removing most of the promotional and peacock terms to make it more neutral. I haven't added the subject's full name as I think care is needed to ensure it's the same person. I agree it could be interesting as long as it's referenced properly. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough information provided (ie forename(s)) to identify the subject of the article. If the original editor knows the forename of this "renowned person", then they can re-create the article with that title. PamD (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An earlier article of this title appears to have been Nominated for speedy deletionin Nov 2009. PamD (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. It's all unsourced, and without a name it can't be reliably sourced. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlothMUD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is not verifiable through reliable secondary publications (the nearest I can find is its inclusion in an unannotated list here [48]) - by extension the games does not meet the general notability guideline for inclusion (WP:V, WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources found. --Teancum (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I got nothing on this one. Only references in print that I could find are trivial references in reprinted mudlists. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Even split numerically, with policy discussion on each side. I don't see where one trumps the other, and while this is a BLP, it does not appear to to be unduly negative or unbalanced. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Martirez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hey all. This article was deleted recently from an expired PROD that I had placed on the article. It was recreated shortly thereafter. I'm not sure that this biography of a living person meets our notability guidelines (see also WP:BIO). The sources used on to cite this current article probably don't meet our policies on reliable, third party sourcing. I therefore think this article should be deleted. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Morenooso (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable news anchor in a major television market. Gets ghits. I live 500 miles north of this station and am familiar with the subject's work. Should be a SPEEDY Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me how this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The Google hits don't show prima facie evidence of being "notable" (in Wikipedia's terms). Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if you can't distinguish a news anchor in a major television market with ghits, you probably should not be nominating articles for deletion. And, that is not a personal attack. --Morenooso (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. By the numbers, this subject gets:

Significant coverage that is independent from WP:V and WP:RS sources.
Reliable sources which again fall under WP:V.
Sources gets secondary coverage. --Morenooso (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Let's see some. :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just one IndepentCoverage. While this is a blog, Links normally to be avoided allow them in WP:BIO when they come from a recognized expert. U.S. News & World Report providing coverage of a money saving consumer segment with a video recap is very notable. --Morenooso (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the slam dunk - Emmy nominated --Morenooso (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject talkpage, thisDIFF now lists 12 URLs in which this Emmy nominated producer, host and reporter are given significant indepent coverage. --Morenooso (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have taken this AFD as some attack by me against Jean Martirez or yourself. While this is not the case, your edit summaries and somewhat hostile phrasing suggest this to me. In any case, you seem to have found a lot of materials. I haven't had time to look through them all, but the US News one isn't long enough to really source anything from, other than that the person really exists. I will have to look at the others when I get some free time. Killiondude (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already state this is not WP:NPA above. As per WP:SNOW, when faced with obvious information that shows what the outcome will be, most editors will elect to go in that direction. If anything, this has become WP:OWN for you about wanting to keep this deletion alive. And yes, this person exists. --Morenooso (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I just haven't checked the other sources yet, so it isn't very obvious (especially since the blog link, as I mentioned last night, doesn't have much content in it). So it is not quite obvious. And the "own" link is sort of random. Have you read that page yet? Perhaps some further useful reading material for you might be Wikipedia:Indentation. Long discussions are harder to read when the indentation is sporadic. I've fixed this page's indentation. Killiondude (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".[49] Yes... it does seem to a be a slam-dunk. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated twice and winning neither time fails that part you quoted. Twice isn't several. Killiondude (talk)

Not everyone who is nominated for a notable award wins that award. Such nominations however do represent being recognized by one's peers for one's contributions, winner or not. Her Emmy Award winning syndicated children’s newsmagazine “News for Kids" recieved both nomination and win. That, coupled with her two more recent nominations show me that she has repeated recogntion by her industry, and is thus worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gone through all the sources that Morenooso found and posted to the talk page. I've commented line by line on each of them, explaining why they are not useful to meeting WP:RS and WP:N. Some of them probably fail WP:SOURCES as well. Please review my comments found in this diff. With regard to the Emmys, (as I stated directly above) WP:ANYBIO says if they win one or are nominated several times then they qualify as being "notable" for Wikipedia. Jean has been nominated twice and won neither time. I don't think that meets the requirements. I'm even more positive now that if that's all the sourcing that we can find on this subject, then Jean probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on the article talkpage, several times the nominator mentioned that she has been emmy nominated several times. Please see WP:ANYBIO which states: 1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times (my emphasis). Basically, the nominator has concurred with MichaelQSchmidt's Keep vote reasoning. --Morenooso (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False. I've said many times now that she hasn't been nominated several times. I'm not sure you follow things well. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this diff. Nominator stated, "I've said in at least three (3) places that she was nominated twice." --Morenooso (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this: Nominator states that he is unwatching this page and the article and walking away. Nominator believes this article is not notable and the sources found by Morenooso are unreliable and fail to show anything of real value for Wikipedia's purposes, but the competence levels surrounding Morenooso are disturbing. Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are unreliable, why walk away and why call my competence level disturbing. I take that as a personal attack. --Morenooso (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nominator has stated it is unwatching the page, this nomination should be closed. --Morenooso (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Only if the nominator actually *withdraw* a nomination should it be closed. I have some disagreement with both sides about that "twice" and "several" thing, but apart from that, I failed to find any real RS. Incidentally, if "If anything, this has become WP:OWN for you about wanting to keep this deletion alive." is not personal attack I don't know what is. Please stop. Blodance the Seeker 07:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see third opinion (thisDIFF] offered by Thepm concerning notability. --Morenooso (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the film is in the no man's land between pre-production and active shooting, and therefore, in the absence of sources that would otherwise make the project notable, not yet ready for its own article. I will move the article to the incubator.. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butter (2010 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another example of me being a little on the fence. Though I can find Google hits about this movie, I still feel it violates WP:CRYSTAL because I cannot find any that state the film is even in production (thus, I don't know why the article says 2010). In fact, the article's third reference leads to a link that says casting for the film isn't even done yet. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not provide enough references in the article? Genuine question, as I'm not always sure how much to reference. There's over 50 news articles listed on the IMDb page for Butter which reference casting details, production, director, locations and so on. Clearly the movie is in production, but i tried to pick links that were most relevant to the specifics of the article. --Ballhammer (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm confused because the IMDb link you added, for example, states the film is being released in 2012. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any link that says filming has started. Some refs say it is in pre production. As WP:NFF says no Principal photography, no article; unless a reference is produced to source filming has begun, this should be deleted (or moved to sandbox to await its time) --Sodabottle (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a few weeks and bring it back once filming has begun. There is nearly enough coverage of casting and production to tickle at WP:CRYSTAL, but it will be prudent to wait until we have more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should userfy it then? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per MQS and per WP:NFF. Let's make sure that this film is a reality first. Shouldn't be a big deal. Erik (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do y'all mean by "incubate"? Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incubating is a more official approach to userfying, so it does not have to be in someone's userspace. Erik (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And too, incubation is at a location that encourages improvements from many editors, while something in someone's userspace does not usually get the wider input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Manager (software)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have not found any coverage beyond press releases and incidental mentions, which is also all the article gives. Haakon (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally used this software and I don't see why you would delete it. It is just as much a valid product as any of the other products that are listed as project management software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.110.122 (talk • contribs) — 76.180.110.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Non-notable software or website, does not meet the product or the website notability guidelines. Claim for notability seems to revolve around the notion that something else used to be at their website, not the current content. That's an original twist. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis software is widely used in the Project Management sphere, it has been reviewed by Microsoft and included in their partnership program, has been written about (favorably for the most part..) in PM Magazine, and has been featured in Gartner -March 2010 which is a highly respected publication but not having a copy I couldn't cite actual references. This is more than many who are already in wikipedia. Some examples of less notability are; FogBugz, Redmine, TaskJuggler ect...

I believe notability can be proved for this software due to the high number of users and offline articles - need time to retrieve these. Rachnzl (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Review of the sources supplied in article reveals the following: PR placements (Marketwire, etc.) and trivial coverage. Sources are also not consistent with the article in their description of what this site/product is -- one source describes it as a "portal" for project managers, for example. I promise to revisit this AfD in a few days to see if Rachnzl has dug up reliable sourcing (I was unable to do so). Clearly, this entity exists, but it doesn't appear notable in any way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepI have used this software for a couple of companies I have consulted for and it deserves to be listed. I don't understand the strong bias to remove it when it is a legitimate product. Maybe those who disagree should download a copy for themselves and try it out. Or maybe they are competitors who are trying to eliminate the competition... PamelaG52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamelaG52 (talk • contribs) — PamelaG52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 11:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crem de la Colbert

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN product...no G News results, and It's not even a real product beyond its one time appearance on Colbert's show. In fact, the only search results are Wikipedia related. CTJF83 chat 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it actually exists beyond the show. Not notable. Jarkeld (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely non-notable, and unless there's an in-joke I've missed in there somewhere - misspelt. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a joke and not a real food. Dr.frog (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok (Norwegian band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~No reliable secondary sources about the band to establish notability.~~ --Explodicle (T/C) 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Explodicle (T/C) 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Explodicle (T/C) 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC#5 "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" - 2 albums on Regain Records, per this source. Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source isn't reliable. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. If Regain Records isn't "one of the more important indie labels", please AfD the Regain Records article first. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to their releases, I found an Allmusic bio and review, Blabbermouth article, and MusicMight - sufficient coverage to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michig - I've intergrated a couple into the article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those look good enough to keep. Thanks! --Explodicle (T/C) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jennifer Government: NationStates#NationStates 2. Shimeru (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NationStates 2

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references from reliable, third-party, published sources. Nothing I can find meets the WikiProject Video games list of recommended sources. Speedy delete was declined and a merger to Jennifer Government: NationStates (the parent game) was suggested. However, there's already a section in that article about NS2 with marginally contentious content, and it's supported entirely by primary sources. I can't find any reliable third-party sources which would justify merging more content, much less keeping this independent article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if there is any usable information) or redirect to Jennifer Government: NationStates. Secondary sources are still needed. There appear to be reviews of the game on the web, though I'm not sure which of these might be considered reliable. Cnilep (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, I can't find any reliable sources from the WikiProject Video games list. Everything out there is a primary source, forum, wiki, or blatant spam/advertisement site. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there may be nothing worth merging, but that leaves simple redirect. Sourcing problems on Jennifer Government are not specifically the concern of AfD. Cnilep (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my response, but I was speaking more to the merge option. Redirecting to Jennifer Government: NationStates is something I could agree with. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jennifer Government: NationStates#NationStates 2, where it's covered. Someone another 22:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Szekely

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable bio. No references, zero information on web (beyound wikipedia derivatives. Pity, but must be deleted.) Dzied Bulbash (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see what makes this person notable. Even if the person is notable, there is a clear verifiability issue. A Google search turned up little if any coverage. The article itself states that "there is not much information known about Szekely." PDCook (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not indexed in International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance. Appears to have had a single mention in Variety sometime during 1938-1942, I have no access to the paper copies. There seems to be no significant coverage in secondary source materials. --Bejnar (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One fastlappers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplication of information which already exists in Fastest lap and List of Formula One drivers. If consensus is to keep the article, can we please change the name?: I have never seen the term "fastlapper" used anywhere else. DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As nominated, duplication of information already available, plus WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's been 50 years since fastest laps has been anything other than a footnote in Formula One races. --Falcadore (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not understand what distinguishes this list from other like List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, List of Formula One polesitters and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners (constructors). PS. From WP:INDISCRIMINATE: In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Cybervoron (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of winners is obvious, it's the single most important statistic relating to any motor race. Pole position contributes significantly as it establishes the starting order of the race. Fastest lap does not contribute at all, it's not determined until after the last car finishes the race, has not contributed to the deciding of the World Championship since 1960, it's essentially trivia and duplicated trivia at that. --Falcadore (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these lists fall under the definition of: "it's essentially trivia and duplicated trivia at that". And the fact that for the fastest lap was given a point (even if before 1960), makes it more significant than a list of polesitters. Cybervoron (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you only listed the season where points were awarded then I might accept that arguement. Seeing as you haven't, then obviously you are trying to tell a different story with this article so I can't accept that point as being valid. --Falcadore (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if will be consensus for this, i will rewrite the list. Cybervoron (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it would still be a duplication of information appearing in list of F1 drivers article, a re-write would not be likely to change my opinion. Can't speak for anyone else of course. --Falcadore (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see a lot of work has gone into this, but it goes beyond what I believe is Wikipedia's remit: to be a general purpose encyclopedia. In the general media, I've never seen any discussion of numbers of fastest laps beyond possibly Michael Schumacher taking the record from Alain Prost. In the specialist press I don't think I've ever seen anything more than a list of the top ten all time (already covered in Fastest Lap). The only place I've seen lists like this is the the stats sites, and I don't think it's our place to replicate that kind of detail. For the period 1950-1960, we could perhaps add a table of fastest laps to the season articles? The info is already there in the results tables, but you can't see easily how the drivers rank. 4u1e (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen any discussion of numbers of poles? Cybervoron (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than I have of fastest laps, certainly, although much less than of race wins. 4u1e (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been renamed to List of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap. DH85868993 (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information is interesting, useful, accurate, complete, and is very well sourced. There is nothing lacking here. If we do not allow this page to exist, where else will we find it? In some book that will cost me 50 dollars? This person did all the work and is not even paid a cent I presume. I also added text in the fastest lap page. That article should have more text, as this article has the complete stats. It would also be better if we keep the most complete list and delete the top 10 F/L list (a list of 9 retired drivers.)

Keep (weak) I was going to say delete, but the above comment changed my mind. Were I a Formula One fan, this would be interesting information, and as (?he?) says the information probably isn't findable anywhere else accessibly. David V Houston (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Relisted as MfD . Dzied Bulbash (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ernie Chen Kok Weng

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is like an advertising piece created for himself. Littlepis (talk) 11:11, April 6, 2010

Comment - Please bring this to WP:MFD. A user talk page is not an article, and MfD is for everything else. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ernie Chen Kok Weng DH85868993 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A New Beginning (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album of non-notable songs from a non-notable music group. There is evidence it exists (and its PROD for lack of notability was removed on that basis), but that's not the WP:GNG standard. The only reviews are user-contributed (not "professional" per the infobox) and the songs and other bluelinks are generic terms or works by others rather than the actual ones by this group. DMacks (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale provided in PROD. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the album at this time is non-notable on the "internet" but I've heard several of these songs many many times on Australian radio in Sydney since December '09 (as have others by what I read on Rate Your Music). I have also had the pleasure of seeing the group live in Brisbane and the singer (Jim Hopkin) is an 84 year old classical tenor who's vocal range and delivery was very impressive for a man of his age. As I am new to Wikipedia I wonder if DMacks would advise if he thinks it would be better to research the group and create a page on the singers 64 years of contribution to music and then link this album (A New Beginning) to that page. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated to understanding how to properly contribute to this wonderful asset - Wikipedia!! David Longworth12:30, 6 April 2010

If the singer is personally notable, a page about him (including small sections about his major groups and other works) sounds like a fine idea. WP:BIO or WP:BAND are probably the most appropriate Wikipedia article guidelines for this type of topic. See also WP:RS and WP:V, the policies regarding evidence needed to support claims of being notable enough to keep an article. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice) - per precedent at the Albums Project there should first be an article about the artist (Generation Gap) which would have to pass the notability test. It probably would if the songs are bonafide hits on the Australian charts. I suggest that an interested person work on an article for the band. Album and song articles are the next step. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Bondurant

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable race car driver. No indications that this driver or his teams (Team Lexus or Drift Avengers) are notable in this context. No indications that Team Lexus ever sponsored a drifting team. No indications that Drift Avengers are notable. Bondurant failed to make any impact in the sport. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. and I have also added a number of references and external links. Silver seren^C 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that there might be some notability here, and the add'l sources are good to have. I'll revisit this one after more work has been done. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess I should go and follow-up my comment from above. The sources I provided are enough to establish notability. Silver seren^C 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Marciano

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography fails Wikipedia musician guidelines. There is a lack of reliable sources available to properly substantiate the article. For the sources given: the LA Music Awards apparently have a story unto themselves, "The LA Music Scene" is apparently a press release (if not, hardly reliable), and one review (that we cannot confirm) by Music Connection does not warrant an article. Furthermore, weasel words strewn throughout the lead make the page come off as an advertisement. Blurpeace 22:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Linked off his own page are what look like legitimate scans from music magazines Music Connection 2003 and All Access Magazine 2003 (though I have no idea if these are reliable sources themselves nor if scans of magazine articles are appropriate for Wikipedia). Additionally there are numerous indications that one of his songs, "The Way it Used to Be" was in the American Pie 2 movie (though not on the official soundtrack release) however, other than the two links above I haven't been able to find any good sources for this (only a lot of forum posts and the like). Also the lead paragraph from the article appears to be ripped from his website and needs to be rewritten. SQGibbon (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not convinced by the reliability of the sources. only found trivial coverage. nothing in the article says notability to be. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga enforcer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software debugging utility, for which I can't find signs of significant coverage among the 53 unique Google hits or elsewhere. PROD contested with the comment that "It is well known within the Amiga programming community. It was distributed on Fred Fish's software collection disks," apparently on disk #454 out of 1120. However, neither of these claims establishes notability within the guidelines. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that being included on the Fish disks counts as presumed notability within the guidellines. The fish disks reads like a who's who of Amiga PD software. --Magin846 (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd be happier if there was something to merge this into, perhaps a list of Amiga PD software of some kind, but as it stands there's no reason why any encyclopedia would have a stand-alone article on this relatively obscure piece of public domain software, and the sources aren't there to support it. Fails WP:GNG. -- œ ^™ 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Othar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a biographical advert with multiple edits appearing to be from Jon Othar himself. Definitely not written from a neutral point of view and serves no other purpose than to use Wikipedia as an advertising tool for Jon Othar's Herbalife distribution. SvenDruzin (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— SvenDruzin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the person did indeed author 2 best-sellers.[50] I agree that the article seems rife with self-promotion, but that can be handled by Othar being cautioned to himself not edit the article and by others working through available sources to perform cleanup through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That statement might be true, it all depends on the editor's definition of a best-seller. I've never heard of any of his books, and a little Googling only reveals a handful of blog reviews and used bookstore listings. There's no formal definition of a best-seller here in Iceland, and given the spirit of the article I can imagine the concept being stretched pretty far to fit the self-congratulation theme. But OK, I can agree that a person that has written six books might be notable enough for an article, but then that article should be about the writer of six books, and not "an acclaimed scientist/author/director" who "has been instrumental in improving the dietary habits and health of Icelanders" and has also "been a pioneer in reforming the Icelandic broadcasting scene with his involvement in Stöð 2 (Channel 2-Iceland)."--SvenDruzin (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to add that the solution of "Othar being cautioned to himself not edit the article and by others working through available sources to perform cleanup through regular editing" seems unlikely to make any difference since A: Jon Othar himself seems to be pretty much done writing his autobiography article and B: even in Iceland he is a nobody so no one will care enough to invest any significant time into rewriting the article. I barely cared enough to start this deletion process.--SvenDruzin (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an individual who read the wikipedia page and who is not connected to Jon Othar, I find it incredibly dismaying that SvenDruzin claims that Jon Othar is using Wikipedia "as an advertising tool for Jon Othar's Herbalife distribution," when this was never mentioned in the page (supposedly as written by him). Jon Othar was a public figure around the time that Stöð 2 was founded and before for his work in nutrition (and, yes, his work was phenomenal). Albeit it is incredibly hard to find sources online, though this is the case for the majority of Icelandic individuals and their histories, if you look through the old newspaper records in Iceland about him he has been debated and congratulated and contested time and again. I will try and get on implementing more sources, because excluding him from Wikipedia, while other much less notable Icelandic individuals are currently on here, is a travesty. Also, what a snide comment about the 'best-seller' wording, the books were written two decades ago, before the internet even became available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnarjons (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as G11 and possibly somebody else will want to start over. The article is an example of almost pure self-promotion. I thought about trying to rewrite it, but this time I admit I'm defeated. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11. If DGG can't fix it, nobody can. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helion Venture Partners

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails to meet WP:Company. It does not cite any references, and after a search for the company on Google, even though many results are returned, most (if not all) of these consist of only incidental coverage; I am unable to find articles that focus on the company itself. Furthermore, a check of the news page on the company's web site has no articles dated later than November 18, 2008, and these articles as well consist of only incidental coverage. Finally, I find the list of clients on the page to be inappropriate and borderline promotional (and possibly WP:LINKSPAM). Aka042 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising that doesn't tell us much: a $350 Million .... stage independent venture fund, investing in technology-powered and consumer service businesses in sectors like Outsourcing, Internet, Mobile, Technology Products, Retail Services, Education and Financial Services.... The Fund has helped entrepreneurs build several successful companies.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 11:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hoskin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No evidence of notability. Sources cited confirm that he exists and is an umpire as stated, but give no indication of significance above or beyond any of the thousands of other referees and umpires in various sports. A few minor mentions in news reporting do not constitute significant coverage. Every indication is that this is a self-promotional autobiography. (Created by user Danhosk.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest, most reluctant keep. Sadly, as with pro athletes, the consensus is that even the slightest whiff of notability (officiating in a top league) is enough to keep them. See Category:Australian rules football umpires or even Category:Vanuatuan football referees! Delete per Quantpole and The-Pope's greater knowledge of the sport. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. If there are sources verifying that he umpired AFL matches, that's good enough for me. While WP:ATH doesn't explicitly extend to umpires or referees, I think it sensible to apply WP:ATH analagously. For all its faults, WP:ATH is at least a clear objective criterion. The alternative is ugly case-by-case arguments about whether an umpire has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Nonetheless, because of the lack of a clear and easy answer to me, I'm happy to run with the consensus of the ping pong experts. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ATH and the other notability guidelines are not guarantees that a person is notable, rather they are guidance as to when it would be expected that someone or something would meet the general notability guidelines. It is understandable (but debatable) that it is expected for a professional athlete to have been discussed in reliable sources, but the same expectation is not true of referees. Rather than extending a much discussed (not in a good way....) guideline to referees, lets actually look at the sources. All of them are trivial mentions or unreliable sources. If this was being assessed under the general notability guidelines there is no way it would be kept. Quantpole (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above I cannot find any information to even verify the numbers of games he has been involved with. I cannot find any reference to him on the AFLUA or SANFLUA. In aussie rules there are also numerous umpires - I believe there are about ten at a game - so it's not the same profile as for example a football (soccer) referee. Quantpole (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can confirm from offline sources that he is an goal umpire in the AFL, but goal umpires are not the main umpires, closest comparison would be like a linesman in other sports. I would argue that field umpires in the AFL are notable, but only the longest serving goal umpires would be notable, which he is not. (and for the record, in the AFL there are 3 field umpires, 4 boundary umpires (only since a year or so ago, used to be only 2) and 2 goal umpires.)The-Pope (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Led to Victory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band, search is mostly false positives and only likely links are artist pages and Facebook/Myspace/YouTube pages, hardly reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe speedy. no notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested nomination despite relist and rescue. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screenwise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Notable founder, notable alumni, but has no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". While with greatest respect to the founder and the alums, Wikipedia is not the Sydney Yellow Pages . As always, I am more than pleased to be corrected Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no references and at this time the first two external links are promotional in nature and the remainder passing references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as nom, I must not !vote. I made a procedurally malformed and thus invalid first AfD here and it was correctly declined. My nom link to that previous version has been re-directed to the properly formed AfD here. These things happen. I would ask that participants in this AfD consider my comments in the previous version of this procedurally correct AfD here. As always, I am most glad to be proven wrong.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgical education

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a spin-out from metallurgy because user:philly jawn did not want to see the education section removed from the metallurgy article, however this is a non-notable subject and there is broad consensus that the article shouldn't exist per Talk:Metallurgy/Archives/2023/December#Education and Talk:Metallurgy#Metallurgical_education.3F. Wizard191 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on engineering education, physics education, chemestry education, etc. This article could definitely be improved, but is worth keeping.

Furthermore, after looking at the talk page in question, consensus not to have an article on this subject does not seem to exist. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject appears to be important enough and notable enough to have it's own article separate from metallurgy itself. Silverseren^C 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you added a lot of ELs, but after glancing at the first three they don't seem to support the article at all; they just seem to mention the phrase "metal education" or "metallurgical education". A mention of the phrase does not assert notability; see notability point 1. Wizard191 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what's it worth, in the former USSR, a lot of univeristies and technical colleges were called Gorno-metallurgichesky insititut (Горно-металлургический институт, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy) and ''Gorno-metallurgichesky technicum (Горно-металлургический техникум, College of Mining and Metallurgy). Ru.wiki search comes up with plenty of institutions. In some company towns that was the only institution of higher education. In practice, of course, beyond mining engineering and metallurgy they often offered other engineering (and sometimes even non-engineering) programs as well, and many have now been renamed as "technical university" etc. (Donbas State Technical University, Kazakh National Technical University). -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The source added is insufficient to show notability, and while tagged for rescue, no further improvement has been forthcoming. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De'Shazer

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael De'Shazer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, self promotion. History indicates a connection with 208.120.234.4 used for promoting applyondemand.com, registered to Michael De'Shazer. No notable sources as references. Shritwod (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reference in the article is to a blog post, and no other evidence of notability seems to exist as far as I have seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable apparently self published author. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and switched out/added some sources. Silver seren^C 06:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justice On Trial

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization. DimaG (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable promotional, no references. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to America First Party. If there isn't anything to merge, just remove the tag and redirect it. NW (Talk) 11:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America First Party of New Jersey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This state branch of a US minor third-party is not covered by reliable sources. The national branch may be notable, but this state branch isn't. Aside from the one candidate the party ran, all the other information is in reference to the national party.

Note: A7 speedy deletion request declined by User:DGG. –Grondemar 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with America First Party, depending on editorial discretion. I agree with the basis upon which this speedy deletion was declined; there is certainly a claim to importance or significance. But I'm not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article for this party branch. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps merging any unique information with America First Party per Mkativerata, assuming it doesn't run afoul of WP:UNDUE. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Probably I should have simply merged and redirected instead of removing the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to America First Party Local chapters of small national parties are not notable by themselves, but the party itself is, so merge to that party's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just FYI, while merging sounds like a good idea in theory, I'm not seeing a whole lot that could be merged without potential violations of WP:UNDUE (in this case, by focusing on the under-performance of a perennial candidate that happened to run on this party's banner in 2002; he ran in lots of other elections as an independent and had zero support then too). The detail about the convention being moved from NJ to TN is unsupported by our references. Listing the chairmen of state parties seems unnecessary. All that leaves is adding New Jersey to the list of states where it had ballot access. Unless someone thinks there is more to merge, we may as well just add it to that list (with a note indicating that it is currently defunct) and be done with it. Of course, I'm a little confused by the list in the first place; it says the parties were granted access in December 2004. The source doesn't support a specific date for Florida though, and since in New Jersey their candidate *ran* in 2002, which means the party must have existed and been granted access in other states before then. The list seems incomplete. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added New Jersey to the list, and reformatted the list to allow for year of incorporation. Does anyone have anything else they feel should be merged? Opinion on this AfD seems to lean towards a merge, and I want to make sure I don't miss anything. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that the question of what, if anything, is to be merged, should be left to editors after the AfD is over. I can see a strong argument for merging very little here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.